Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Why not link to articles?

dashes are used in page names, a redirect using hyphens must be provided (see also Manual of Style (dashes)).

Why not consult our article on Dash, which at least has sources and citations? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed; but the MoS should fitly be first, since it is a sibling page in WP's advisory/policy infrastructure and has a different status (and hopefully greater stability and monitoring) than those articles. I've made this change. Tony (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So, this is more of Tony's empire-building. We don't have an advisory/policy infrastructure; we're not a bureaucracy. MOS is far less stable than this page; that's the cost of being maintained by revert-warring, not consensus. I will adopt PBS's solution, below, if he hasn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

NC and contents policies are semi-detached

"also" or "see also" must appear before Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) because the MOS (dashes) is not a naming convention guideline. There is no reason why editors should not be pointed towards the MOS but there should be no wording that implies that the wording of the MOS expands and explains the naming conventions. That way lies confusion and disharmony. The other side of the coin is that the Naming Conventions should not dictate what appears in articles. --PBS (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

But as far as use of hyphens/dashes is concerned, surely the same rules are supposed to be followed in titles as in article bodies (i.e. those listed at MOSDASH?)--Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care - and would not care if I were free to do something about it - what MOS says about dashes; we should not use rules made up in school one day, and if we must refer readers to an unreliable source like a Wikipedia page, we should choose the one with sources and citations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It's perfectly reasonable for us to point editors to Wikipedia's house style instead of to an article that tells people about non-Wikipedia uses of the same punctuation marks. In fact, since an editor looking at this page is presumably looking for information about how dashes are (and aren't) used on Wikipedia, instead of how they are used in various irrelevant situations, times, and places around the world, it would be pretty silly to exclude the link to MOSDASH. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If our house style on dashes were not something that a handful of Language Reformers made up in school one day, without sources or citations, I might agree. As it is, however, I will consult printed style guides if available, and dash, which has collated them, if not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If the question is "How does Wikipedia use dashes?", then a respones of "Well, Chicago says dashes ought to be used like this..." is somewhere between irrelevant and willfully stupid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

recent changes

I agree with Kotniski that the location of the advice on remaning articles was unsatisfactory.

Philip Baird Shearer's justification (edit summary) for partially reinstating Anderson's attempt to downgrade the mention of MoS appears to be part of his objection to anything on the subject at MoS (see MoS talk page). The issue about "also" appears to be totally irrelevant. Please come up with a better reason here first. Tony (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I put back the version that has been here for months. If you think the reason for also is totally irrelevant why remove it? -- PBS (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"If you think the reason for also is totally irrelevant why remove it?" I did remove "also", because it is, as I said, totally irrelevant. Please state here why you believe a WP style guide should be placed second to some article. It seems like a case of trying to force your own view of en dashes, as you have been doing at MoS talk. Tony (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No I have not been trying to force any opinions on dashes. Quite the contrary, I don't want to force their use on anyone. What I do want to do is to make sure that Manual of Style guidelines are not mixed up in the Naming conventions. There is enough confusion with the guidelines to the Naming conventions without opening up a whole new vista. However this is a point I have made in the section #Why not link to articles? and I suggest that we carry on the consensus building exercise there and not in two places at once. --PBS (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've copy-edited the opening, which was repetitive. Can I remind users that policy and style-guide pages need to get their point across in as little text as possible, and that the messages should aim to be plain, straight and simple.

This is not the case, for example, in these two prominent passages:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to articles easy and second nature.

Newbie editors should not be flummoxed; whereas I am. What is a reasonable minimum of ambiguity? What is "reasonable"? Why, a newbie might ask, should there be ambiguity at all? Is it referring to the scenario where redirect pages are required? If so, can it be more explicit, and possibly provide a brief example? Why "easy and "second nature"?

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

This sentence is ambiguous; I read it the wrong way first. "Seeing" is rather loose ("determining"?): does it mean "how ... refer to the topic"? Tony (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Reasonable" is a word frequently used in common law and is understood, by most English speaking people from that context. As to the rest is that not what the conventions and guidelines seek to explain? -- PBS (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No one cares what is used in common law: at issue here is whether the word adds anything to the meaning. Please identify what is lost if it is removed. As for the rest, have you read my posts above? Tony (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Reasonableness would be lost. If you mean the posts in the section #Why not link to articles? yes, but as this seems to be predominantly about another topic why not keep further comments about the MOS inclusion to that section? --PBS (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Um ... what is wrong with "with a minimum of ambiguity"? Tony (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between "reasonable minimum of ambiguity" and "minimum of ambiguity", the former means that some ambiguity is tolerable the latter not. --PBS (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

For example "minimum of ambiguity" could be read that in no cases should we have a main topic for an article with a hat-note on top as that is ambiguous. The other way it would effect many articles such as those currently under in Wikipedia:NC (names and titles) and WP:NC (ships) where the name could be pared down because the name given is not one with a minimum of ambiguity, so for example William Grosvenor would be the only person on the page Duke of Westminster who was not under their title. It would seem better to keep the phrase "reasonable minimum of ambiguity" to cover both these issues. -- PBS (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless good reasons are provided, I'll make these changes. On another matter, there is reference to "native" forms under "Use English words". Does "native" mean "foreign"? "Native" is an ambiguous word in this context. Tony (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I see this as a "Yes and No" -- as shown in the examples -- it can be a native name that is also used in English, which means that it is not foreign word. If however the native spelling is not used in English then it is a foreign word. --PBS (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm thoroughly confused, and so will almost all readers be. Can the wording be more explicit? Can you talk in the terms you've used in the post here? Do you mean "foreign words that have been adopted into English"? The sentence should be easy to comprehend. Tony (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've recast the Use English section to remove all references to "native" - hopefully that will resolve the difficulty. About "with a (resonable) minimum of ambiguity", I would remove that phrase altogether (from the section it's in at the moment). It would belong under the "be precise when necessary" section - we don't want to keep repeating everything everywhere.--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Shearer, sorry, Kotniski's version is correct, and your reversion is wrong, in grammatical terms.

- Convention: Name pages in English unless a foreign form of the name is more recognizable by English-speaking readers.

Convention: Name pages in English unless a foreign form of a name is more recognizable to English-speaking readers.

It is the two words you have reverted that are wrong. Now, this blind reverting has to stop. If you object to a change, made by an experienced and skilled editor, not some fly-by newbie or vandal, then raise the matter here. Otherwise, people might think there are WP:OWNERSHIP problems on this page. Please self-revert. Tony (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a blind revert, as I did it with my eyes open ;) I made what I consider to be the minimum changes. "a name" because an entity can have more than one name (but I agree on re-reading it that "the name" is clearer within the current sentence, (although not strictly correct as there can be more than one name). As for the second change I wanted to make a bigger change but was trying to keep it to a minimum. I would like to replace "is more reconisable by/to" with "has greater recognition by". So the sentence would then read

Convention: Name pages in English unless a foreign form of the name has greater recognition by English-speaking readers.

--PBS (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Query: "The policy is supplemented and explained by the guidelines linked to this policy, which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view." Perhaps I should be able to see it, but can someone explain why NOR is relevant to article naming? Tony (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not particularly relevant, but as all three content policies should be interpreted with regards to each other and not in isolation, so no harm is done mentioning it and it may be useful. --PBS (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What about "greater recognition by" ? --PBS (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"greater recognition by" sounds better, Philip. What does Kotniski think?

"The", in fact, is better before "foreign" ("the foreign form of a name"). BTW, the title there is uncomfortable: "Use English words" ... but it immediately countenances the use of foreign words under a specific circumstance. I don't know how to fix this.

I noticed "... set out in detail how that objective is achieved. This page sets out Wikipedia's policy ...". This unfortunate repetition might have to wait until the "Overview" section is reassessed as a whole. Tony (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And I beg to differ: if NOR is not particularly relevant, readers should not be told it is. The shorter the better: this is a very long document, and rather inaccessible in my view. Tony (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to "greater recognition by". About NOR - I guess it might come up in cases where people try to solve problems by making things up ("hey, why don't we call the country 'Ire-Land'?"), although it doesn't seem to stop them giving decidedly innovative names to monarchs.--Kotniski (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Be precise when necessary

The following statement is currently in the Be precise when necessary section, which is supposed to apply to names of articles whose most common name is primary for some other topic:

If alternative common names exist for a topic, using them may be the simplest way to disambiguate; if not, add a disambiguator in parentheses.

A beneficial feature of Wikipedia is that, for the most part, the title of a given article declares the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of that article. If an article title is disambiguated with a disambiguator in parenthesis, that benefit is still achieved. However, if we use another less common name for the title in order to disambiguate, then the benefit is lost. Perhaps we could change the above to the following:

If an alternative common name exists for a topic that is as commonly used to refer to the topic, using it may be the simplest way to disambiguate; if not, add a disambiguator in parentheses.

--Born2cycle (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess there's a balance to be struck; in some cases we might use a somewhat less common name (though still reasonably common) to achieve disambiguation; thus mirroring the way disambiguation is achieved in real life. For example, New York City might be a less common name for the city than "New York" (I don't know), but we would still prefer it to "New York (city)" or "New York, New York".--Kotniski (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, how to clearly say that in words? How about...

When an alternative common name exists for a topic that is somewhat less commonly used than the most common name (though still reasonably common), using the alternative may be the preferred way to disambiguate; if not, add a disambiguator to the most common name in parentheses.

--Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this. I support, and I believe there is very strong consensus amongst WP:PLANTS people for, the practice of resolving ambiguity in plant common names by recourse to scientific names; e.g. [1]. I don't want to see this convention redefined in a way that would make this sensible practice controversial. Hesperian 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a case of WP:BEANS! I am very tempted to move it back as you must have known that given the comments on talk page (Talk:Wineberry (New Zealand) which you did not move) and the previous move back, that there is no obvious consensus for the move, why did you not put it up for a WP:RM as you know that NC common and NC flora contradict each other? --PBS (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of that the previous move was disputed, not having checked the talk page. I checked the history, and saw a mess of moves involving the ludicrous title Aristotelia serrata (New Zealand). These moves were made before we had a flora naming convention. The flora naming convention is now long-established, and my move was, I believe, uncontroversial. You are, of course, at liberty to move it back. Note, however, that this would be pointless procedural wonkery, since the Google test indicates a great deal more hits for "Aristotelia serrata" than "Wineberry", despite the count for the ambiguous latter containing numerous hits (apparently the majority) for Rubus phoenicolasius. It is indisputable that the scientific name is more commonly used than the vernacular name in this case, and if you add to that the fact that the common name is ambiguous with no primary use, it is impossible to make a case for the opposition. Hesperian 11:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME cannot contradict NC flora, because it explicitly says (at WP:UCN) to use the most common name, unless another naming convention indicates otherwise. Specific agreements that have obtained consensus supersede broad principles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This identifies a problem with the recent merge. Prior to the merge, there was no such limitation on "Use the most easily recognized name". That is, "Use the most easily recognized name" was policy, regardless of what more specific guideline might say. Now, that part of the policy is linked to WP:COMMONNAME, which, as you note, is limited by unless another naming convention indicates otherwise. That's a fundamental and an unacceptable change. Unless someone figure out how to fix this, I think this is grounds to revert the merge. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as related to any recent merge. I've been working in RM for years, and it's been the practice there for years that specific naming conventions supersede the general rule to use common names. Far from "unacceptable", I see it as a Good Thing, and an instance of consensus in action. There are considerations such as consistency among similar articles that absolutely should take precedence over a blanket "rule" to use the most common name in each case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle's view that the general convention supersedes specific conventions was dispelled a few short months ago; see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 13#Strengthen COMMONNAME. Hesperian 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This argument is also raging at Wikipedia:Naming conflict where a group are trying to reverse the long-standing guidance without consensus on the same bogus argument of "contradiction." I have just reverted a change PBS has made to this policy to aid his position in that dispute. Xandar 23:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have also reverted the following added sentence that goes against the consensus decision posted by Hesperian above, namely "Where a naming guideline appears to conflict with this policy, the policy takes precedence (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)." Xandar 23:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Use common names of persons and things

This has been removed from the policy

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

There is now no mention of using common names in the policy. The convention (possibly modified) probably needs to be put back into the policy page. What do others think? -- PBS (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll go and post a request at WP:RM for this to be moved to WP:Naming contentions. — cygnis insignis 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this substantial and non-consensus change to policy, which seems to have been made to influence the outcome of the struggle on the non-consensus changes that PBS, M, and others are currently trying to push through on the WP:Naming conflict page. The change to policy would remove the important exceptions provided by the Naming Conventions, and specifically removes the link to WPNaming conflict. Xandar 23:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflict is still linked to, under the section "Controversial names", which seems to be the most appropriate place.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes the link is there but the wording in no longer in the convention, instead it is relegated to a guideline, I think "common name" must be in the policy. --PBS (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's another issue; I was talking about the link to Naming conflict. Do you think "common name" is different from "what reliable sources call the subject"? If so, we have another clash of ideas to resolve.--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not neccesserily but in which case we need to define common name "what reliable sources call the subject" (or whatever) because common name is used throughout the policy and guidelines. But see my comment in the Draft section. This is all happening too fast. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've again restored the first section of the sentence above, up to the first comma, the removcal of which would be a very significant policy change, negating much of the array of existing naming conventions. Xandar 10:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental objective

I dispute that choosing a recognisable title is the "fundamental objective" of our naming conventions. As I have said many times, we have multiple priorities here, of which accessibility is just one. Others are consistency, precision, accuracy and neutrality. One only has to look at the broad sweep of specific conventions to see that many titles are a balancing act between two or more of these priorities. To claim accessibility trumps all as our "fundamental objective" is just ridiculous. The over-emphasis on accessibility was bad enough before; now it is worse. Hesperian 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A while back, I drafted a re-write of this convention, which was aimed at recognising the many priorities involved in choosing a name; but I abandoned it after Septentrionalis convinced me that all of these priorities flow from the "by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." It is all very well to assess the various options in terms of consistency, precision, accuracy, neutrality, accessibility, and so on; but ultimately a decision has to be made, and there can be no better grounds for making that decision than to do whatever reliable sources do.

This being the case, the fundamental principle here is in fact "follow reliable sources". "Use a recognisable name" stems from that, as do the other priorities.

Unfortunately, recent changes to this policy have promoted "Use the most recognisable name" to the status of fundamental objective, and removed any mention of following reliable sources from the overview section. This is unacceptable.

Hesperian 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

These changes to policy should not be made without community-wide consensus. I have reverted this to the original wording too. Xandar 23:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Community-wide consensus is a nefarious concept – is it what you determine it means? And does it apply to the cleaning up of plain bad prose? Tony (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No there's a difference between cleaning up bad prose, which is okay; and making substantive changes to policy that apply globally across the project. If a policy change is to have effect on a large number of articles, and possibly restart numerous old battles and edit-warring campaigns, then it needs wider consideration by the community. That is laid down in wikipedia policy on Policies and guidelines. Xandar 10:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The overview section still lacks any mention of following reliable sources. Hesperian 00:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I too would support wording including such a mention. Knepflerle (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see that Xander has removed the word "primarily", which seems to have been added in support of Hesperian's point above. I think it was safer with "primarily", since the exclusion of all but what sources say appears to be rather restrictive for all cases. Xander has also reverted the good changes to that appalling sentence in the first section: now we're stuck back at "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I've asked on her/his talk page to justify "reasonable" and the inclusion of both "easy" and "second nature". We're not going to get far this way. Tony (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "We're not going to get far this way." No. This page already suffers extremely from inertia. I'd rather not add to that by reverting, unless we are clearly heading in the wrong direction—which we are on this reliable sources issue, but otherwise not. Shall I try for a defter revert? Hesperian 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Since Xandar appeared to be acting on my above objection to the removal of the reliable sources stuff from the overview, I have undone Xandar's wholesale revert and restored what I had objected to the removal of. Hopefully this will meet Xandar's purpose without rolling back all the other changes. It is far from where I was hoping to take this, so my comments above still stand. My purpose in reverting was not so much to achieve anything on this point as to allow other threads to progress independently of it. Hesperian 01:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems we're again developing into a situation where we have two opening sections both trying to say the same thing, in different (and not necessarily consistent) words. Can we make up our minds - to what extent does "recognizable" mean "used in reliable sources", and to what extent does it just mean "used"? And to what extent (and for what reasons) do to we want to allow particular specialized naming conventions to override the general principle of using the most recognizable name? I don't believe the answer to either of these questions can be 0% or 100% - can someone find a manner of phrasing that accurately expresses the balance that applies in practice?--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with "where recognizability is determined by what reliable sources in English call the subject." I read it first as referring to a grammatical subject (which part of a name the sources regard as the grammatical subject). Can't it be "where recognizability is determined by how reliable English-language sources name the subject". Is that the intended meaning? Tony (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to have "where recognizability is determined by what reliable sources in English call the subject" and "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name primarily by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." in the policy, particularly when they do not say exactly the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing deleting one of these statements? Which one?--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed: I don't know why PBS though I was proposing that both be used side by side. If the second is the intended meaning, it is clearer and should be substituted. Tony (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I didn't I was making another point that supported what you said. But I think too much is happening too fast. See my comment below in #Draft version -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've again restored the original wording of "Generally" to the newly added "Fundamental principle" leading sentence, and taken out the contradictory and illogical "when a guideline appears to contradict policy" new sentence. The new wording would be moving towards a doctrinaire approach that would make the general principle of recognizable/common names into a rigid rule that would replace the currently stable and effective practices codified in the various Naming Convention sections and pages. This is "fixing" something that isn't broken, in a way that would cause significant disruption across the project. The naming convention pages have grown up for good reason - because many significant issues arise for which a one-size-fits-all approach to a naming rule doesn't work. Xandar 10:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In a sense, the fact that naming conflicts do now cause quite significant disruption is an indicator that something is broken. It would be wrong to blame it entirely on the confused way the naming policy/guidelines are written, but it surely doesn't help. I agree that there isn't just one criterion for solving naming disagreements, although there is a principle that has always tended to hold sway in the vast majority of cases - we need to find a way of expressing that.--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reminder - I would just remind participants in this discussion that our policies are, historically and currently, descriptions of best practices, and not statutory law.

  The fact is that we have various naming conventions operating in various domains of article-space. I say this as someone who has closed thousands of move requests over several years. Where a particular WikiProject reaches a consensus on some particular naming convention, is is de facto the case that their naming convention supersedes the general principle of WP:COMMONNAME. Changing what it says on the policy page cannot change that; it can only make the policy page more or less accurate. These are not laws, this is not court, and editing policy is not some kind of word-magic that will force reality to comply.

  If you want naming conventions to change, then go about convincing people about specific cases, and once you've done that, abstract the experience to a description of what happened. This is how it works, per WP:IAR, WP:PPP, and probably lots of other pages. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's what we're trying to do. Can you help? Can you suggest a wording (for the first few sections of the page) that well describes the situation as it operates, based on your experience?--Kotniski (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, whaddya think: [2]? -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a move in the right direction as far as I'm concerned - what do others think?--Kotniski (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Most excellent. Hesperian 12:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

However, I still believe that we should be following usage in reliable source, and that this should be elevated to a core principle. Hesperian 12:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good one. Rather than "elevating it to" a core principle (we haven't got that power), I fully agree with "identifying it as" one. (Yes, that's pedantic. Sorry, but here we are, in pedant's paradise.) This principle seems very closely related to the recognizability one, because names used in reliable sources will tend to be recognizable because of that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what PMAnderson convinced me when I last attempted a draft: that it is all very well to articulate our criteria, but in the end we have to make a choice, and there can be no better choice than doing whatever reliable sources do (I think I'm misrepresenting him, but what's important here is what he convinced me of, not what he was trying to say.) For context you might want to skim Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 12#Disputed.

Re: "names used in reliable sources will tend to be recognizable because of that." Yes, and where a more recognizable name is rejected by reliable sources, the principle of least surprise suggests we should reject it to. e.g. Kotniski's "shit" versus "feces" example. The principle of least surprise tells us to reject the more recognizable name in favor of the name preferred by reliable sources, because that is what our readers would expect us to do. Hesperian 13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the upshot of what you're saying. Is it that the "following reliable sources" criterion trumps all the others? The vision I've got of these criteria is that they are all taken into consideration, and individual cases are decided by consensus, with them in mind. Readers familiar with the English sundew may well be astonished by the name Drosera anglica, but WP:NC(flora) indicates the use of scientific names, for consistency. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no trumping. For months I've fought against the notion that "use the most common name" trumps all our other values; the last thing I want is for some other criterion to step into its place. What you've done here is the way it should be: we state our values, and we resolve tensions between them on a field-by-field or case-by-base basis. But I guess I see "follow reliable sources" as something different, not a criterion, but rather a resolution method. If there is a tension between our values, as in your sundew example where (granted for the sake of the discussion) recognizability is at odds with consistency, then we need some way of choosing the name that best balances our values. The argument goes that reliable sources share our values, and have to make exactly the same naming decisions, so we'll just do what they do. If the majority of reliable sources say "screw consistency; everyone knows it as the English sundew so we'll call it that too", then we ought to do the same. ... However you have given me pause, to wonder whether what I have just said is not just the same as giving one criterion a casting vote—which brings us back to trumping. I don't want to do that. Hesperian 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's what we;re trying to do, then how the hell did

"Where a naming guideline appears to conflict with this policy, the policy takes precedence (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)."

end up in there?! This is the antithesis of what GTBacchus is saying! And it was rejected by the community yet again just three short months ago; see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 13#Strengthen COMMONNAME. What gives?!

(Thankyou GTBacchus. I endorse your statement 100%.)

Hesperian 11:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a quote from WP:Policy? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the proposal to strengthen commonname.--Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where it comes from. Notwithstanding the title, the "Strengthen COMMONNAME" discussion was about whether WP:NC (xxx) could override WP:NC. Hesperian 12:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not strictly true that "our policies are, historically and currently, descriptions of best practices, and not statutory law." because they are are part of a loop back system, whatever is said in a policy tends to be reflected in the naming and structure of articles. Hence the less a policy or guideline change the closer practice tends to be to that policy. Change a policy which is usually undertaken because of inherent conflicts within the wording of the polices and guidelines and it tends to ripple out through the talk pages of articles and hence into the content of articles. -- PBS (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that people tend to treat policies as if they are laws. What is really happening there is that people are agreeing that what has worked in the past is continuing to work. As soon as it fails to work, it is instantly negated, per IAR. The fact that many editors are oblivious to this nuance is not an indication that we should join them in oblivion. It means that we need to better articulate our policies so that they are understood as descriptions of previous broad consensus. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If NC is to take itself seriously as a policy, rather than a style guide, it must be no mere description of what a group of editors think are current best practices: it must set out policy. Tony (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To "take itself seriously as policy"? I'm not sure what that means. I don't believe that it means becoming statutory law, or something like that. It means it reflects and records broad consensus established over many cases, over a lot of time. All any of our policies have ever done is describe best practices that we've discovered. I know there is a popular idea to treat policy as law, but I must fundamentally disagree with that conception.

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules takes itself seriously as policy, and per that policy, the other policies, in order to take themselves seriously in the same way, are not statutes, but descriptions. This is the radical notion at the heart of all Wikipedia policy. The page WP:PPP is a pretty good description of this notion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the upshot of this sentence?

"Where a naming guideline appears to conflict with this policy, the policy takes precedence (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)." I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say. What does this policy say that a specific naming guideline would conflict with? Since the policy allows that specific guidelines are often adopted for the purpose of consistency, how is a contradiction possible.

In other words, policy says that specific agreements exist and hold sway, so how do these specific agreements contradict policy? Can someone provide an example of a situation that this sentence addresses? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Were you not involved in the WP:RS WP:V consensus building exercise just before and during the WP:ATT experience? And for that matter the attempts to harmonise the content of the main MOS guideline with subsidiary/specialised MOS guidelines?

Guidelines should complement and enhance policy, but occasionally they contradict it or could be read in such a way that they appear to contradict it. In such cases if they appear to contradict policy, then they should be read in such a way that they do not, and in the case where they do contradict policy they need to be altered (or the policy needs to be altered) so that there is no inherent contradiction. It is much better to fix contradictions than leave them (which is the easy option for policy specialists), because such contradictions cause endless debate among editors on article talk pages, AfDs etc, etc. --PBS (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the general principle. I just don't see how it applies to this situation. Can you help me with that? Can you talk about any specific example, please? I'm open to learn something here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It means, in practice, "Please start long and pointless disputes about whether an article should be called Aristotelia serrata (following the specific guideline) or Wineberry (New Zealand) (following the general policy)." This sentence would cause many avoidable problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Draft version

This policy page is starting to get very unstable. There are several competing long standing points of view that are not going to be resolved quickly.

I strongly suggest that we go back to the version as it has been for may months, and move the latest into Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Draft so that the interested parties (I include myself in that list) can find wording that we all can live with.

The version I suggest going back to is 17:09, 30 August 2009 With two additions:

• add into that one the Polish convention.
• and revert out the alteration that Pmanderson made to dashes sentence.

--PBS (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that is a stable and fair target to revert to, but I'm opposed in general to the apparent impossibility of making any progress whatsoever on this page. Must we always keep going back? Hesperian 12:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see any need to go back to an inferior version. Progress is being made here - if people object to any change, they can say what and why.--Kotniski (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In what way was it inferior? It was stable and largely had consensus. These rapid changes show that there currently is not consensus. -- PBS (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the reason it was "stable" was because any attempt to improve it was knocked down, as you seem to want to do with the current attempt. The main thrust of the changes has been simple presentational improvement that no-one is objecting to, and it would be unhelpful to lose that just because of a few quibbles over wording. --Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a few quibbles over wording. There are fundamental differences, and although we may be able to resolve them in a draft version we will not solve them by edit warring, on a policy page. I have explained to you my current concerns "I could live with the merging of the two sections..." and in the same posting warned another would disagree. Now it may be possible that in a draft, like a Rubik's Cube we can slot all the bits into place but we are not going to do it when everyone feels under pressure and threat that at any moment the version of the current policy is as they see it harmful to the project. Your main objective seems to be to merge sections because you think it will bring clarity to the page. It is doing that, but it is also opening up lesions because the older wording is a compromise and has some ambiguity. -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to clean up this page up and make it more precise and clear, but I knew that it would cause the sorts of problems that have appeared, because we are now arguing over several issues simultaneously that have not been solved in over a year of debate on them as individual issues. -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I for one predicted that Hesperian would object to the inclusion of "Where a naming guideline appears to conflict with this policy, the policy takes precedence (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)" and without that clause I object to the combining of the previously separate paragraphs, because it weakens the policy in the ways I described. Now I know that Born2cycle has problems with the use of reliable sources and that Xandar has problems with the change of wording. So I strongly suggest that we go back to a stable version and move the changes to Draft. where we can see if we can come up with a solution that pleases no one but is a working compromise that we can call a consensus. This is a very important policy page and it is not good for Wikipedia to have its core principles in a state of flux, with only a dozen editors participating in the debate.

If we go back to the earlier version, which presumably was acceptable (even if not all the aspects were liked by everyone it was a compromise that we can call a consensus). All of us in this debate and edit frenzy can debate the changes calmly and stop disrupting Wikipedia by created an unstable policy page through lots of small edits. --PBS (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If the version you want to revert to was a novel edit, I most certainly would not consider it "acceptable". The only reason I grudgingly accept it is because it has the status of an articulation of a previous consensus.

Kotniski has restored the sentence I objected to above, and I shall leave it there for now. You stated above that "without that clause I object". Now that the clause has been restored, can we let this stick for now?

Hesperian 13:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Above all, there shouldn't be contradictions between this policy and guidelines. If we think there are, then let's identify them, so we can discuss how to resolve them.--Kotniski (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that if this policy is flexible enough, it is difficult for a guideline to contradict it. A tried and true test case is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I think we can agree that this title is a triumph of precision and consistency over recognizability and prevalence in reliable sources. Under the previous version, it was in violation of the policy, which proved that the policy failed to reflect consensus. Under the current version of this policy, I suppose it is not in contradiction, since it is clearly covered by "In cases where these criteria are in conflict with one another, the resulting questions are resolved by discussion towards building consensus, always with these principles in mind." Hesperian 13:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree that that name is a triumph of anything except stubborn blind rule-mongering;) But I can't deny that it reflects the consensus, or at least the status quo, so this policy has to be worded so that it acknowledges that kind of situation.--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(reply to PBS above) I'm not convinced that this discussion and these edits are "disrupting Wikipedia". Which article is unstable on account of these edits? What stability outside of the paragraphs we're tinkering with is jeopardized? Disruption has to be real disruption before it bothers me one bit. In particular, if no article is affected, then Wikipedia is not disrupted. Sorry. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Not actually sorry... just a figure of speech

• Oh, no going back, please: sends a bad signal to everyone, including those who are likely to do the most work in fixing up the page. Yes, a draft would be sensible, starting with the current version of NC. Tony (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the sentence "Where a naming guideline appears to conflict with this policy, the policy takes precedence (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)" from the latest version since it is a)non-consensus, and seems actually to go against the consensus reached a few weeks ago on this page, b) confusing c) advocates chaos in Naming Convention pages by appearing to giving people who "think" policies are in contradiction free rein to assault them, and d) would tend to make all Naming Convention pages redundant, since their sole purpose is to provide alternate or supplemental guidance for specific situations. That is a substantive change that requires community consensus. Xandar 23:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't know what that sentence even means, or what problem it's meant to address. Can anyone answer the question I posted above at #What is the upshot of this sentence?? (This is not to say I oppose its inclusion, just that I don't get it. Sometimes I'm dense.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have replied above but Xandar's answer should prove the point. See aboveDoes WP:NC defer? for more on this. -- PBS (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your reply. I'd still like to see it in concrete terms, as it applies to this policy. Have you got an example. That would be ideal, at least for the sweet understanding I'm trying to gain here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What is not concrete about that one? If it were not concrete why is Xandar reverting out the sentence? -- PBS (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why Xandar does anything that he does. I would be happy to hear from him a concrete example (i.e. talk about a specific title of a specific article) of what is at stake with this sentence. If either of you do that, I'll be very happy. Until then, it seems to me to be an argument about sand. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is both vague and disruptive. I know why some people want to include it here - because of a continuing argument at WP:Naming conflict, where certain people are wanting to radically change the policy there because they allege mistakenly that it conflicts with "Use most easily-recognised name". The general policy that policies outrank guidlines is stated elsewhere. What some people want to do is restate it here and particularise it to the naming convention guidelines. What that does is remove the position the Naming Conventions have as extensions to and exceptions from the general advice. That is a major and substantial change of policy which would have the effect of making the naming conventions redundant. In addition the statement goes further and adds "appears to contradict", giving anyone carte blanche to claim a contradiction and start edit-wars. Xandar 10:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I don't care in the least "why some people want to include it here", unless I can understand what specifically is at stake. What article are you (or PBS) talking about? Which naming dispute hangs in the balance?

I disagree that a sentence in policy gives anyone carte blache to do anything. That's because, per IAR, these policies are not laws, and I refuse to go along with a lawyerly interpretation of them as such. Editing words on policy pages does not change policy, but it might make the policy page more or less accurate. This is important to understand. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski, PBS and some others are wanting to radically alter the WP:Naming conflict convention by removing the provisions on self-identifying entities; the excuse being that it "Conflicts with" the use common names policy here. WHen pointed out that this policy page does not provide a rigid rule, and specifically sets opt-outs through the recognised naming conventions, we suddenly find that those very sentences are suddenly being altered and negated on this page by some of the same people. Coincidence? Xandar 22:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Gentlemen: are we going to use the drafting page I created? Did I do the wrong thing? Please see the bottom section for the link. Tony (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing, but I want to revert to the stable version of the page that I suggested before with the additional minor modifications, otherwise the edit war will continue on this policy page. -- PBS (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think following GTBacchus' excellent rewrite we don't need to fear an edit war, and there is no reason to go back to any previous version. The only urgent dispute at the moment seems to be whether to include the sentence about policies trumping guidelines - and since that's only a quote from another policy, it seems to be on the one hand uncontroversial, and on the other unnecessary (since it's there at the other policy page anyway). So whether we include it or not seems a fairly unimportant question. Of far greater importance is resolving the remaining contradictions (maybe there aren't any, but I fear there may be many) between the policy page and the various guideline pages, and generally making it all into one coherent whole. --Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski. May I stress the urgency of not edit-warring on this page? Tony (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an edit war here, and I must say that is mostly due to PBS's admirable restraint in not reverting, despite arguing that he should. There's an amusing irony there: PBS's restraint has delivered us a new (albeit temporary) stability, and if PBS does revert now, I'll be hard pressed to figure out whether he is preventing or initiating an edit war. :-) Hesperian 02:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I'm astonished that anyone would question the need for reliable sources for article names. I'm not talking about the issues over what constitutes a reliable source for an individual article, but rather the general principle.

Certainly there are no discrete states, but I see three clear modes: reliable sources, unreliable sources, and original research. It's amusing to consider the second ("Wikipedia endorses unreliable sources—film at eleven"), but I don't see it ever gaining any traction. Some of the statements that others have made, I could construe to support original research, but I'm content to assume that's not what they meant. All that is left is reliable sources.

I'm not saying that a new article can't be created unless its name can be sourced. I'm not even suggesting {{fact}}-tagging article names (I'm not even sure the software supports it). What I'm saying is that, in any disagreement over an article name, a reliable source should always trump original research or an unreliable source, and that, in any contest between sourced names, reliability must be one of the criteria.

Is that too much to ask?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is questioning the need for reliable sources? I'm following the discussion, and I seem to have missed that bit. I thought we all agreed that it's a fundamental principle. Am I missing something? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I used the find tool in Firefox and was able to follow the general threads without any trouble. I'd hate to have to step through history to find the diffs, but I suppose I could if I had to. Born2cycle in my estimation has long been an opponent of reliable sources if they support a technical name over a name that he feels the is correct "common" name, and M made a statement above against reliable sources, although seems to have accepted them later. Besides myself, Hesperian and PBS have indicated that "reliable sources" should be a requirement. Considering how often it is mentioned, it would be nice if we could decide to include it first, and then determine how to weigh it against other factors.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The find tool in Firefox? Showoff. :p

It is in the policy now, so asking that we decide to include it... I think we've got you covered. I agree that it's fundamental (I personally added it to the policy this evening - did your fancy-dancy "find tool" reveal that? ;) ), and anyone disagreeing seems to have the short end. Do you think it should be more emphasized than it is now? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm just weary from past battles. Sorry.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, that happens around here. Keep the faith. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand Born2cycle's argument it is not that B2C disagrees with using reliable sources, it is more to do with the relative weighting between sources. It is quite often the case that experts in a field use a term which is only used by specialists in that field—the use of specalised language jargon/slang as a group identifier is itself a well studied academic topic in its own right—and in a specialist academic journal they may well use a term that non specialists could recognise easily, (we do it here with abbreviations like WP:RM, WP:V, NPOV etc).

If for some reason such a topic comes up in widely read newspaper, just one article in a popular newspaper using a different name is more likely to be the name known to more people than the name used in the specalised academic source with a small readership. For this reason B2C argues that widely read or broadcast sources, are more reliable for naming an article than academic journals — the reverse of what WP:SOURCES suggests.

Last year when added the rule about use the reliable sources to WP:NC, we could have written a separate set for WP:NC, and I considered this at the time and rejected it, because

• firstly I could not think of a simple obvious algorithm and that we could use that stated a mention in the NYT was weighted by "n" while a mention in "obscure academic journal" was weighted by "a", and were would that put a mention of a topic in The Sun ... .
• secondly it added a level of complexity in editorial maintenance of the section WP:NC#SOURCES with the endless arguments over how close it should be to WP:V#SOURCES, that the gains it would have given us for a small minority of articles where a common name weighted by the readership of publications, differed from the common name used in publications, and

So I came to the conclusion that although I could fully understand B2C's argument, I could not see a simple way to implement it and editorial maintenance would be considerable, so using the KISS principle linking to WP:SOURCES was the best solution, although I could see that following the reliable sources as defined in WP:V occasionally an article would end up at a name that was not the common name, in that case I would hope that a local consensus would form to WP:IAR when naming it. -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Having watched my own conversations with reporters distorted in print, and seen plenty of examples of newspaper articles with misinformation about a variety of scientific concepts, I'm leery of using a single newspaper article as a reference for the name or nature of any technical subject. There's the danger of giving the Wikipedia stamp of approval to a misstatement. As several of us have pointed out, another principle of article naming is accuracy—I hope we all agree that no article should have a name that is flat-out wrong. But in the haste to choose a "common" name over a "technical" one for a subject that is not widely known, there is a real danger of adopting someone else's mistake.Curtis Clark (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS understands my argument, though I've never said anything about a single newspaper article trumping all academic sources, which is the one point Curtis latched onto. But, in general, yes, assuming the name usage in one large newspaper (NY Times, WSJ, London Times, etc.) article is not based on misinformation (which can be easily verified in the case of name usage with a google test), it is probably a better indicator of what name would be most likely recognized by general readers than would more academic sources. In fact, usage in academic sources is arguably not the third party reference that we prefer in Wikipedia, especially with respect to name usage.

Further, and this is the controversial part of my argument, I contend that usage in so-called "unreliable" sources, like blogs, myspace and facebook, forum posts, and user posts on news websites, is actually more reliable -- not individually but taken in aggregate -- with respect to determining what names are most commonly used, and most likely to be recognized by the reader, than are the "reliable sources" we use to substantiate article content. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All this seems to me to be a really good way to perpetuate misinformation. If, for example, I wanted to carry out a scholarly study of the common name of a plant species, I'd go around to various people across the area where it occurs with a sample and ask them "What's this called?" I'd thereby get a big sample size; I might end up with multiple common names, but I'd be able to say "farmers call it 'this', except in the rice-farming areas around the delta, where they call it 'that'; cattle ranchers call it 'the other thing', and landscapers call it 'crapola'." Which of those names would be used for the Wikipedia article would most likely still be discussed with some fervor, but at least there would be evidence to be brought to bear.

But let's say that a cattle rancher's citified son wrote a blog in which he talked about his youth and the smell of flowering 'the other thing'. He looked in a wildflower book, and it best seemed to match Cosa otra, so he included that binomial as well. People googling for Cosa otra came upon the name 'the other thing' and used that as the common name for the plant. After a while, there might be a few dozen references. A newspaper might pick it up, and on the basis of googling (and especially because of the Wikipedia article of the same name, which Born2cycle had moved from Cosa otra, proclaimed that its common name was 'the other thing').

Clearly the information has flowed through a bottleneck, and there is but a single data point. Most of the people who create the online content might never have seen 'the other thing' in the wild, and at any rate there are fewer of them than of farmers who call it 'this' or 'that'. But all this is moot, because one of those cabalistic specialists identified plants called 'this', 'that', and 'the other thing' (oh, and 'crapola', too), by using technical keys and comparing with museum specimens, including the type, and found that they were all Cosa esculenta, not Cosa otra.

If a reader outside the range of Cosa otra were to recognize any name at all, it would be 'the other thing', because that's what's on the web. And one could argue that that common name is "right"; after all, people use it. And perhaps the opinion of the rice farmer ("That ain't no 'that'! Why, hell, that there plant don't even grow round these parts.") doesn't count for anything. But I think Wikipedia and the world have lost, rather than gained, by following this path.

And if this seems contrived, I've witnessed all the individual pieces, and it's perhaps unlikely but certainly possible that they could all co-occur.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It might help that our policies are not a suicide pact. If we adopt some standard, and that standard leads to clear misinformation, then the standard is instantly negated in that case, and we revisit the question with regard to the particular example. Does that make any difference, as you see it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Instantly negating" the standard is only possible if everyone agrees to do so. A single editor waving a standard seems to count more that an handful with an alternate solution, and, no matter how it turns out, time is spent that could otherwise go into editing.

One of the recurring issues with the names of plant articles has been disagreement over what constitutes misinformation, and an impetus for the current guideline was to rein in the endless quibbling. An accomplished editor asserted that common names used by him and others in Britain were correct, and that common names used elsewhere (although documented in reliable sources) were misinformation; in part as a result of that most often being against consensus, he left Wikipedia.

Hesperian has written until his extremities turned blue about the need to balance all criteria in naming: accuracy, unambiguity, and NPOV being as important as recognizability. Technical names often have an edge in every area but recognizability, and so Born2cycle's deprecation of them in favor of common names elevates recognizability over the other criteria. I object to that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Spaced dashes

Should en dashes be spaced in titles? Specifically, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox Bilateral relations. — RockMFR 00:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

MoS: Space the en dash if there's an internal space within one or both items; otherwise, unspaced. In essence, the appearance of the dash "opens up" with the items. Tony (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC) PS That list looks perfect, except for "Iran–United Kingdom relations", which should be "Iran – United Kingdom relations". Note that when one item is a particle only ("Sino") rather than a full word ("Chinese"), a hyphen is used instead.Tony (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes they should. I'm glad to say that most of those articles comply with that guideline, since I was the one who moved them. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Draft policy rewrite page

Let's deal with it here, please? Tony (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

I'm wondering about the following issues:

1. Ease of searching and linking. Is this really one of the key criteria? I mean, obviously we want searching and linking to be easy, but when we have redirects, is it really that important (separately from recognizability, which we already list) for the article name to match the most common search/link term?
2. Precision. It works both ways - we sometimes have problems with people being overprecise in article names. Perhaps that side of the coin should also be alluded to in the "Precision" paragraph under Overview?
3. The "User the most recognized name" section says "except where other Wikipedia naming conventions say otherwise", with WP naming conventions linked to the section of the page called "Speific conventions and other guidelines". Is this really what we mean? It seems to be a relic of a trumping model, which implies "this list of rules trump common name, and common name trumps everything else". If that were the case then we wouldn't even bother listing the other guidelines in between (Use English and so on) or the other criteria at the top. What is it we're actually trying to say here?--Kotniski (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking you second point yes precision works both ways we have discussed that before which is why I think that "reasonable" should be in front of "reasonable minimum of ambiguity,".

Taking your third point that is what is say now because the sections have been combined but if we go back to a previous wording:

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

I have repeatedly argued that the conventions were only contained in this policy document the rest are guidelines to the policy not conventions. -- PBS (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I like that wording better than the sentence that I still don't understand (still waiting for replies above from PBS or Xandar). That's something I've seen applied (indeed, have myself applied) in the field, and I "get it". Use COMMONNAME, unless some other naming convention indicates otherwise. Very simple, boom. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And PBS is wrong to try to argue that there are separate Naming Conventions, and "Guidelines" to Naming Conventions. This is untrue. All the naming conventions are guidelines with equal status, and they are referred to on this page and listed atthis Category page. Xandar 23:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this preoccupation with the "status" of pages. That's a bunch of hoodoo. Pages in the project space are accurate insofar as they describe best practices, and otherwise, they're inaccurate. They're not laws. Any caviling over "this is a policy but that is a guideline" is simply irresponsible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the key impulse behind the desire to remove the sentence in question is making the Naming Conventions of rigid subsidiary status to the general rule set out on this page of "use common names". Xandar 11:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you describing your impulse, or someone else's? If it's someone else's I won't believe you. Well, if you can tell me what number I'm thinking of, I'll believe you. ;)hint: it's not an integer! There is no such thing on Wikipedia as "rigid subsidiary status", and nobody can wish such a cancer into existence, thank Zeus. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "except whether other accepted naming conventions give a different indication, do this:" is a relic of the trumping model. We've moved away from that. It doesn't need to be rephrased. It needs to be removed. But the main problem there is that "Use the most recognised name" is still big-noting itself. Hesperian 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Kotinski, PBS is correct in that your concern (3), The "Use the most recognized name" section says "except where other Wikipedia naming conventions say otherwise", did not apply prior to your recent merge. Prior to the recent merge there was no mention of "except where other Wikipedia naming conventions say otherwise" in that section. As I said above, I believe this in and of itself is grounds for reverting that merge, unless that limitation is removed from the current version. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Things do not "apply" or not according to whether they are written on a policy page. That is a superstition that we need to root out. It is de facto the case, per thousands of completed move requests, that specific conventions tend to take precedence over more general ones, while at the same time being informed by the more general ones. Note the intentionally non-legalistic wording "tend to take precedence over". These are not laws, and altering words on a policy page does not change reality. For that, you actually have to convince people of things, in context. "In context" means, not here, but at WikiProjects and on specific articles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Born2cycle's revert. The "except where" clause is now explicit elsewhere, and implicit in the tone of the page, so it needn't be spelled out again specifically in this section. Hesperian 00:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally confused now - you're all telling me that a phrase we have now wasn't there before, then quoting a passage that shows that it was there before. And you're all talking about merges when what happened in the end wasn't a merge, but a rewriting of two sections (the first one more so than the second). Perhaps we could stop looking at the history and look at what we have on the page now - what is illogical or inaccurate about it and therefore needs to be changed? In particular, what can we say about the actual order of precedence in which the various "rules" are applied? Do people accept GTB's statement that specific conventions tend to take precedence over more general ones?--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a matter of precedence; this is another part of the superstition GTBacchus was talking about. If someone comes here looking for the consensus view on how they should name a particular article, they are more likely to get that from a specific, tailored convention (where one exists), than from a broadly applicable, general one. Hesperian 10:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

When I said "take precedence", I didn't mean in a legal sense. I just meant that people tend to follow the specific over the general. It's an observation, not... something else. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my head is spinning. To respond to one little point above, PBS, the word "reasonable" has no place in a policy statement, at least not in that clause. Reasonable in whose opinion? The common-law legal test of "the reasonable person" is irrelevant here. Tony (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

See my comment further up this page which starts For example "minimum of ambiguity" ... --PBS (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have again restored the important passage that Kotniski is so desperate to remove from this policy without consensus.

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article...

It is important and quite clear - even though it interferes with some people's intentions for the Wikpedia:Naming conflict and other pages. Such a major policy change requires community wide consensus. Xandar 11:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that by restoring that sentence you convert a principle back into a rule, making it more binding on the specific conventions, not less. I really think you're bidding against yourself here. Hesperian 11:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Particularly since the section it links to is quite clearly another section of this page, and has nothing to do with Naming Conflict (which is a different page). I think your (Xandar's) own obsession with that page is making you assume that everything anyone else does is somehow connected with that page.--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(Or indeed that anyone who seems to be against you can be referred to as "Kotniski" in edit summaries.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has the power to "convert into a rule" anything. Nobody can create a rule on Wikipedia. Im-freakin'-possible. If you believe you can do that, or that anyone else can, that's a form of cancer. I wouldn't keep harping on this point, except I think it's incredibly important. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing break in "Concerns" section

At the moment this conversation is yet converging on an agreed solution. In the mean time people are editing in and out their preferred wording. I have resisted joining into that process, but as my comments should have made clear I am not at all happy with some of them. So I think it is better that we go back to an earlier version which reflects the consensus as it has been for many months with all the ambiguity that it has.

I have placed the latest changes to the text into Tony's Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Draft policy rewrite and reverted the page as I suggested above. 17:09, 30 August 2009 With two additions:

• add into that one the Polish convention.
• and revert out the alteration that Pmanderson made to dashes sentence.

I hope that is a reasonable compromise as we attempt to reach a consensus on a new version. To begin with I suggest that we copy this section to another talk page and continue the conversation there (perhapse Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Draft policy rewrite/Talk but some one else who is more familiar with such things may be able to suggest a better name).

The editing and conversations over the last few days have shown that at least among the few editors who have been editing here that there are great tensions over the best way forward and I hope that with good will we can come up with wording that will satisfy everyone. But I would ask people to refrain from editing the Policy Page until we have a consensus for a clear change. And I suggest that we salami slice the problem as it will make it easier to reach a consensus. For example I think that the change Tony made to the lead paragraph should be reinstated into policy. That could be done if no one objects to the change. We can then move onto other areas and see if there is consensus. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for doing what you just did. When you suggested doing it no-one supported it; it shows disrespect for other editors to revert their efforts for no reason. There is no great tension about the current version (any more than there was over the previous one) - we're working on improving it. Please discuss specific points or make bold edits if there are things you're not happy about.--Kotniski (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made a bold edit, and I think that your current suggestion of make bold edits to the policy page, when I know that there are people who disagree with me currently, instead of trying to reach a consensus for change first is not a good idea as it leads to edit warring. -- PBS (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"There is no great tension about the current version (any more than there was over the previous one)" Yes there is great tension, that is obvious when we can not even agree if a sentence copied from WP:policies and guidelines should or should not be in this policy. --PBS (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets wait and see what other editors think. Because at the moment I do not see any support for the version that you are wishing to keep. -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see any justification. Everyone on this page appears to be happy with the broad direction we've taken this, except Philip Baird Shearer, and I've yet to see Philip Baird Shearer be happy with any change to this page. As far as I can tell, there is far more support for the new version than for the old. The only dispute is over a single sentence, and even with respect to that sentence there is agreement amongst the disputants that the general convention should deal in principles rather than hard rules. This is essentially a spillover from another dispute, not a disagreement with the thrust of the changes recently made here. As I said above, I'm inclined to see a revert like this as precipitating an edit war, rather than preventing it. Ultimately it is a revert to PBS's preferred version, against the wishes of at least four other editors. In that context, it was reckless, not bold. Hesperian 12:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. I had been pleased to note that PBS had ceased his WP:OWNer-like behaviour on this page recently - clearly I was too optimistic. Since no-one is willing to stand up to him, let's at least move this page to his user space so it can be clear to everyone whose views it represents.--Kotniski (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian. It is not over a single sentence. There is no mention in the policy of what "common name" means. Without that in the policy, common name is relegated to nothing more than any other guideline. AFAICT that is not something that most people that have been editing this page want although I can see that you Hesperian and Xandar may wish that to be true. If such a change is to be made intentionally then a lot more than the editors currently involved in this disillusion should indicate if they are in favour or not as it fundamentally changes the meaning of this policy, from where it has stood for many years. -PBS (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski, please do not assume bad faith. I am in favour of change, but it must be consensual change, and not edit warring change. I happen to think that combining the two sections is a good idea. But the bits have not slotted into place and we are a long way from agreement on them. I suggest we work on the Draft and then put it in place, when there is agreement. -- PBS (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Work on the Draft"? No, this is a trap into which I will not fall again. It is beyond my ability to present Philip Baird Shearer with a perfect rewrite, and in the face of an imperfect improvement Philip Baird Shearer will forever quibble, and forever declare the absense of consensus. Philip Baird Shearer will be able to declare the absense of consensus for all eternity because ultimately the only way to test consensus is to do what we have done: edit the policy, and see if it sticks; and that Philip Baird Shearer will not permit. Thus consensus is held hostage to the whims of Philip Baird Shearer, by the simple expedient of a willingness to repreatedly revert in the name of "no consensus" no matter how well things seem to be going, no matter how happy with things everyone else is. Hesperian 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith. Just as one example I did not approve the the changes that user user:M made to "Specific conventions and other guidelines" but I left them in place, and only reverted because I was asked to by another editor who thought I had made them. I am willing to work on a draft version in good faith. But I object to changes being made here that in my opinion fundamentalist alter these conventions. -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"You are assuming bad faith." Not at all. I believe you have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. But that doesn't make your rigid conservatism any less frustrating. I will not again fall into the trap of letting you decide when to give a change the green light, because for you, the light never ever changes. Hesperian 12:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In cases where one feels that others are assuming bad faith, it is often more effective and de-escalatory to simply explain one's intentions than to accuse the other party. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) In response to PBS's most recent revert, with edit summary "There is no consensus for this version. Take it to the talk page. I think that I do have support", I can only observe that of the admittedly small number of people who are paying attention here, Hesperian, Kotniski, GTBacchus and Curtis Clark all support the rewrite. Tony1 and Born2cycle are little harder to read, but certainly neither of them have come out against it. PBS alone opposes it, and at this point he has entered into very little discussion about it, other than to repeatedly express the opinion that there is not yet consensus for it. PBS has expressed his desire for stability, but evidence suggests that he alone is standing in the way of stability. After all, in the absense of PBS's unexplained wholesale reverts, we would merely be quibbling over the inclusion of a largely unimportant sentence. Hesperian 12:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How can mention of "common name" be worked into the Draft version of General principles? --PBS (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Very easily - why are you suddenly making an issue of this? It would have just been one sentence to change - no need to reverse the whole thing. --Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not suddenly made an issue of it. I have made this clear before, it is linked to the sentence from policy and guidelines. This is an issue at the nub of this recent dissagreement. --PBS (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand it then. Does my last edit satisfy you? If not, what do you think is still missing?--Kotniski (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is becoming more and more difficult to discuss changes in a calm manner when changes like this [3] are being made on the fly. Now I agree with the former wording. I do not agree with the latter. The former is much closer to the original paragraph. The latter is not. The latter only applied to common names. Now it delegates the whole of the policy to guidelines, if it is not coupled to the sentence from policy and guidelines. So what do I do revert out those changes, and edit war over them? Much better to discuss such large changes to a draft, than to the policy page-- PBS (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying that you are opposed to the inclusion of the "Except where other accepted... " bit, then you agree with Hesperian, Kotniski, GTBacchus and Born2cycle—another case of something agreed to by a broad cross-section of editors. The only person who insists on this being included is Xandar, and not because he disagrees with the broad thrust of this revision; rather because he believes its removal impacts an unrelated dispute. I'm going to take it out. Hesperian 12:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS, if you find it difficult to discuss in a calm manner, I quite sincerely suggest a walk somewhere out-of-doors. If it's not raining or otherwise inhospitable, it is often the case that exposure to a bit of nature does wonders for our nerves. I plan to stroll down to the Adriatic in an hour or so, taking advantage of the fact that I'm temporarily working in an exceptionally beautiful locale. Last night's sunset was sublime. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicts!! grrr) I don't believe that there is a difference between "most recognizable name" and "most common name". I am aware that Born2cycle does, but I believe this is discovered poetry; that is, I believe Born2cycle is finding distinctions in the text that were not in the mind of the text's author. Be that as it may, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) does, I believe, have broad community support, and it certainly should be linked from the main convention. And in fact it is: at the bottom of the "most recognizable name" section, there is a line that says: "Rationale and specifics: See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)." Is this unsatisfactory? Do you believe that there is a distinction between "most recognizable" and "most common"? If so, is this distinction important? If so, is the distinction large enough to warrant treatment in separate sections? I for one would willingly see these two sections split out again, pending consensus on how to handle it, so long as the general thrust of the rewrite is retained. Hesperian 12:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You draw that distiction yourself when you move pages like Wineberry (New Zealand), surly you would argue that it is the most "most recognizable name" even if it is not the most common. --PBS (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I argue that the scientific name is both most recognizable and most common; and I think the "most common" name and the "most recognisable" name will pretty much always coincide, so long as "most recognizable" and "most common" are both assessed "by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." And most importantly, I think the distinction didn't exist in the minds of the people who wrote it. These were intended to be two ways of saying the same thing, and somehow a distinction was found, and some people argued to preserve that distinction. Hesperian 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW Hesperian what do you think is "the general thrust of the rewrite" --PBS (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Articulation of principles rather than enumeration of rules. Hesperian 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS, hi! This conversation moves fast, so I may have missed it, but I still haven't seen an example of what the hell the contentious sentence is actually about. Can anyone tell me about a specific article whose title would change depending on whether that sentence is considered to be "in effect"? Please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a number of things (which combined cause problems like the removal of common name from the general guidance) another is s phrase that has crept in the last day or so "while others contain additional conventions by subject area. " -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What is remotely contentious about that phrase? Isn't it just a statement of fact? Can it be phrased better?--Kotniski (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Boy, does that ever not answer the question I asked. Apparently nobody knows of any practical upshot of the sentence under debate. That's sad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have AGAIN had to restore the sentence in question. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS FOR ITS REMOVAL - and certainly no consensus across the community. I wonder why people are so anxious to remove this safeguard - particularly those who are currently trying to radically change the Naming conflict guidance without Consensus - and are using as their sole argument the so-called "contradiction" between these pages. One of the chief among these is Kotniski. Hesperian twists my words, when I bring this point up. Yes. This phrase IS important in the dispute Kotniski began on the other page - however it is equally important to maintain the clear position that Naming Conventions document valid exceptions to "Use common name."

If people are worried about turning the section back, into a rule by the phrasing, as Hesperian claims to be, we can alter the phrasing slightly, BUT IT NEEDS TO STATE CLEARLY that the Naming Conventions provide valid exceptions to "use common name." However trying to make a major policy change without cross-community consensus in the manner some seem to want to, is invalid. Xandar 20:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, no living human has the power to change policy by editing words on a page here. Until you understand that, I'm going to keep repeating it. Editing policy pages does not change policy. Policy exists out there in the world. This page is a more-or-less accurate reflection of that. If you understood this, you'd stop edit-warring, and take a more calm approach to this issue. Do that.

I note that you still fail to provide any practical upshot of this sentence that seems so important to you. Is this because you are unable, or because you are ignoring the question, or is it something else? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

GTBachhus, I wish you'd give your advice to Kotniski and his allies - who keep saying that WP:Naming conflict has to be changed because it "Contradicts" this policy. Then he changes this policy to eliminate the point that refutes his argument. If this page is so unimportant - then why is there such sudden anxiety and determination to change it without proper discussion and consensus? And I am not the one edit-warring. I am restoring the long-term policy as re-affirmed just weeks ago, that Naming Conventions provide exceptions to the general policy. The people edit-warring are thoise who keep re-applying a non-consensus and substantive change to this policy without the required community-consensus. That is what is against Wikipedia policy and practice. Perhaps you will now tell them to stop?

As to the practical "upshot", the attempt to change the naming convention already referred to, using this very paragraph by some of the people proposing the change here is practical enough. What more do you require? Also I would like to ask the reason for the urgent desire to remove this sentence that has stood for so long. Xandar 20:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you not noticed that I'm singing the same song to everyone here? You're not special; don't worry. What I'm looking for, and what I've asked for repeatedly without any response is an actual name of an actual article that would change based on the inclusion or exclusion of the controversial sentence. Show me the MF'n money, already! What page in the encyclopedia depends on this sentence? Just give me one (1), and you'll have done infinitely more than anybody else.

The idea that you're not edit warring if your reverts resemble the past is asinine. Reverting anything repeatedly is edit warring even if consensus is on your side, which in this case is not at all clear. In an edit war, both sides are edit warring. This is trivial stuff; where have you been, man?

The stupid anxiety that you ask about comes from people believing in the stupid superstition that editing these pages is a form of stupid word-magic that changes reality. It's cancer if you say it, and it's cancer if anyone else says it. If you think I'm just picking on you, then you're not paying attention. I've made this same point tonight to a half-dozen different people. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll give you some examples. This particular paragraph is talking about exceptions provided by the various naming convention pages. The disputed text reads roughly: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions indicate otherwise, use the most common names etc.," Removing the clearly stated exception of the Naming Conventions, allows it to be argued that A) The individual naming conventions should be changed to wholly prioritise "Use common names" above other specific considerations. (That was specifically added to this re-write at one point.) and B) The basic policy trumps the Naming Conventions. Therefore, the name of articles concerned with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should be moved to those using the more Common, but often offensive name Mormon Church. The article currently at First Nations, should on that basis be moved to Canadian Indians, since that is the more commonly used although more offensive term. Similar issues arise with Dalits, Romany, Indigenous Australians etc, all of which use self-identifying rather than "common" names, which are either inaccurate or offensive. Republic of China is not the "most common name" for Taiwan, but it is used because it is what the nation calls itself. There is also Kolkata vs Calcutta, Ho Chi Minh City v Saigon. The issue of recent changes of names is also affected, since it takes some time for "reliable sources to reflect a change of name of an entity or individual. There are similar issues in other fields such as Biology. The disputed sentence helps prevent unecessary misunderstandings and quarrels over these issues, clearly derogating many of them to the naming conventions. Xandar 21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I thank you. I agree that Kolkata should not be moved to Calcutta, despite the commonness and recognizability of the latter. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We use Kolkata, as WP:NCGN says, on the basis of two arguments; that Indian English is a national variety of English, and that the Indian usage is predominantly Kolkata.

As far as I can tell, there has been no evidence of the second, aside from the fervor of some Indian editors; but it may well be true all the same. Such a claim seems to be false of some Indian cities, which is why we still use Bangalore, not Bengaluru, despite the self-identification by the city government.

The first involves the usual ENGVAR reasons: that it is silly to switch from one variety to another; and that our readers about Calcutta are likely to be predominantly Indian (and so be used to Kolkata). Again, there does not appear to be any evidence for the last statement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ENGVAR is about English usage rather than naming - and if it were to cover naming, it would merely be a roundabout way of saying "use self-identifying names" in certain national contexts. That would mean that a self-identifying name could be used in a country held to have a "national variety" of English, like Indis, but not in another, like, say, Vietnam. The simple fact is that self-identifying names are used across Wikipedia - and will continue to do so, since it is the most efficient and least-offensive way of naming many articles, ensuring they are accurate, avoiding uneccessary disruption and keeping articles up to date with a rapidly changing cast of people, organisations and places. Xandar 21:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Xander

Dude, if you don't want the general convention to be able to overrule specific conventions, you've already won. That is, we've already won. The general convention has been largely rewritten over the last few days. Before, it was a set of rules that the specific conventions must conform to or be damned. Now it is a set of principles that the specific conventions embody. This means far more freedom and flexibility for the specific conventions.

So you're actually bidding against yourself by continually reinstating that sentence. By removing it, we are demoting "use the most easily recognized name" from a rule that cannot be broken by a specific convention without good reason, to merely one of several principles that the specific conventions should take into account. In restoring it, you strengthen that clause, making it more binding on specific conventions, not less. I know that sounds odd; please, think upon it.

Hesperian 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this precise section is being used by Kotniski and others at WP:Naming conflict in an attempt to push a change removing the self-identifying names section of the convention, alleging "contradiction" with policy. The keenness to remove the proviso has a lot to do with that agrument, and that view of the Conventions. As I see it the "protection" of the individual conventions in the new wording is "soft" and subject to interpretation, while the phtase in question is "hard", and less easy to wikilawyer. Xandar 11:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that removal is supported by Philip Baird Shearer, Kotniski, GTBacchus, Born2cycle and myself—five editors who rarely agree about anything. I don't know which of these are involved in your other dispute, but the assertion that removal is motivated by that dispute is demonstrably wrong. I've removed it again. Please let us know how else we might make the convention reflect your take on consensus. Hesperian 13:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The first two named are heavily involved in the dispute. And I'm afraid that you five DO NOT compose the cross-project consensus needed to radically change policy in this way. So please do not keep reverting your non-consensus change to policy. If a change this big is to made it needs to be considered by all concerned in the community. Xandar 20:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Then file an RFC already. Remember to word it neutrally. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made this edit, because this is the naming conventions page (and policy) The others are guidelines to the policy. There is no point have a set of conventions which lay out the policy, and then having wording that will allow any guideline to completely contradict the policy page. I strongly suggest that we put back the wording based on WP:policies and guidelines that "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are standards that all users should follow. Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence." -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is the point in dispute, PBS, and You and your allies are the ones who are suddenly so determined to change the policy without consensus. Therefore the principle stands until it is overturned by consensus. Xandar 16:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The nutshell

I really dislike the current nutshell as it stands:

"Articles are named in accordance with principles and conventions that Wikipedia has adopted through experience, in order to best serve readers of the encyclopedia."

I find it woolly and uninstructive: in almost the same way, the civility nutshell could be written by merely changing the first three words:

"Discussions are carried out in accordance with principles and conventions that Wikipedia has adopted through experience, in order to best serve readers of the encyclopedia."

...but I find the current nutshell there much more informative on how editors should be civil.

I would like to see a brief survey of the general principles, along the lines of:

"Article names are chosen to best serve the readers of the encyclopedia. Articles are given names used in reliable English-language sources which are both easily recognizable and sufficiently unambiguous.

Suggestions and comments? Knepflerle (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly prefer your version (and I'm the one who wrote the current one). Just don't let it get any longer than that, or it won't be worth having a nutshell at all (in fact I wouldn't mind if we didn't have a nutshell at all, but people seem to like them).--Kotniski (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How about

"Article names are optimised for the use of readers. As much as possible they should be recognisable, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable sources."

Hesperian 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I could certainly live with that. Knepflerle (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So could I (I think -ize spellings are used on this page though).--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to retain English-language.

"Article names are optimised for the use of readers. As much as possible they should be recognisable, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources."

--Born2cycle (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

-ize and English are both fine with me. Hesperian 23:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

recognisability and reliable sources

The common names section presently says both

"what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize—usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English."

and

"Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name primarily by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."

These would be redundant to each other if they weren't subtly contradictory. As some of you know, I am too steeped in a long-standing dispute in this area, for me to be bold here. Does someone want to fix it, or shall we first thrash out what "fix" means here?

My own opinion, despite my having relied on the latter wording for many months, is that the former of these is more in the spirit of the convention. However I was not involved in the protracted disputes that resulted in the inclusion of the latter in the first place.

Hesperian 13:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the disputes were about, nor can I imagine how this difference wording could conceivably have affected anything, but to me too, the former wording seems preferable (and the second can therefore be removed as redundant).--Kotniski (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a pedantic issue with "verifiable reliable sources". Sources aren't "verifiable"; facts are verifiable via sources. I would replace "verifiable reliable sources in English" with "reliable, English-language sources". -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There may be a point here, even if verifiable doesn't express it. The existence of the sources, and that they actually use X, should be checkable; there is a risk that somebody will cite a pile of books, without titles or page numbers, and claim they are reliable sources for the name he wants to push. I'm not sure how to say this, and not absolutely sure it's worth saying. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. How about.... "usually the most commonly used name that we can verify as being used in reliable, English-language sources."? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see a difference between usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English and Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name primarily by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. Both weasel-word around the rare cases in which the sources do not use the most recognizable term (presumably we would have to have a statement in the sources admitting this) and where none of the reliable sources are in English. If Hesperian can explain his contradiction, it would help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide an example of a case where the sources do not use the most recognizable term? Are you thinking of plant articles, perhaps, or something like the "shit" v. "feces" case, or is it something else? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I merely identify a logical possibility, as one reason for generally and primarily; I wasn't thinking of anything in particular. If I were pressed, I suppose the pedantry-chasing by which Chippewa has become Ojibway, Ojibwa and now Ojibwe, as the scholars keep changing their minds about to represent non-English sounds, and the article chases these ever-moving goalposts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Take the name "Scharnhorst class warship (1936)", that was chosen because it could not be agreed what the most common name is. If the editors had followed the naming conventions for ships, it would have been one of four choices, so that is a case where usually comes into play--Depending on sources the it could be "Scharnhorst class" or "Gneisenau class" and the class can either be referred to as battleship or battlecruiser. But a better example is when we use a descriptive name, or an English language name that does not exist in reliable English Language sources, in which case it is not the common name as found in reliable English Language sources, although hopefully it is still the most recognisable name eg Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict. -- PBS (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the "shit" v "feces" case is the more useful. There is a rich vein of such examples running through the topics of private bodily parts and functions: e.g. "shit" v "feces", "defecation" v "pooing/shitting", "testes" v "balls", "flatulence" v "farting"/"wind", etc. Biological example that don't require us to turn this policy into a toilet door include "humerus" v "funny bone", "patella" v "knee cap", "orbital bone" v "eye socket", "calcaneus" v "heel bone", ... Hesperian 23:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ease of searching and linking

I mentioned this before but it got lost among with other issues. I don't see that "ease of searching and linking" needs to be one of the key principles (at least, not as it's currently articulated). Doesn't it just come down to the same as recognizability? Would anything be lost by leaving it out?--Kotniski (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not much, no. I meant to reply to it earlier, but as you noted, it was run over by about 30 fast trains. I think it's a bit of an artifact from 5 years ago, when I used to bother to read policy (or whatever) pages. Redirects pretty much take care of the issue, although, if most links arrive at an article via a particular redirect, that seems to indicate that we at least consider whether that's a better title. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a minor consideration, which tends to be parallel to recognizability. But it is convenient to know, when writing about the twelfth century, that the actual title of Henry I of England is exactly that; it avoids dumping readers on the dab page Henry I. Also some readers object, on aesthetic grounds, to arriving on pages through redirects; if we can pipe them to the direct page, there's no harm in doing so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite see the point about Henry I, but we seem agreed that it isn't one of the main principles, but should be mentioned somewhere - any suggestions as to where?--Kotniski (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would mention it here; it's the justification for all systematic article naming, from WP:NCNT (which names all the kings of England as {Name} {Roman numeral} of England - except John of England) to WP:FLORA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, we understand "it" completely differently then - for me it would tend to go against systematic naming, since readers are far less likely to search for systematic names (particularly when the system is invented by WP) than common or real names. But by "where" I didn't mean on which page, I meant in which section of this page.--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Until readers observe that we use systematic names; often not difficult. Ease of linking, however, cannot apply to readers, who do not make links, but to editors, who do. I thought I replied that this principle, minor though it is, is independent of the others - and so should be listed with them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The way you're interpreting it, it seems not to be independent of the others, since the others include "Consistency". The way I interpret it, it's not independent of the others since the others include "Recognizability". Either way, it appears not to be useful as one of the 4/5 main principles listed in the overview. But perhaps it could have its own section among the "General principles" (along with such things as "Use English"), with the various competing aspects of the matter addressed.--Kotniski (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me think about it; it's been a while since we've discussed it. It also includes such points as our preference to use article names which can exist in running text: no parentheses when avoidable, a preference for short and colloquial forms, use of lower case when there is a choice, and so on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dashes and hyphens

PMA, I know this is one of your pet peeves, but what exactly is the point in continually changing the wording to downgrade the significance of the Manual of Style as regards use of hyphens and dashes? Is there a case where the way we use hyphens/dashes in titles ought to differ from the way we use them in article text?--Kotniski (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It's the only mention of MOS in this text. That's because they cover text; we cover article naming. If I were Jimbo, it wouldn't be mentioned at all here; each guideline to its own field.

   This would apply even if I thought MOS the best thing since sliced bread. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

2. MOS:DASH, as usual, covers dashes badly; it's an unsourced bunch of rules of thumb made up in school one day. At least dash has sources and cites them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would choose different rules for dash use too, if it were up to me. But given that whatever "sources" you look at will recommend different styles, and that we have chosen one of various acceptable styles for use in artcles, is there any reason not simply to refer people to that style to find out how to use these signs in titles? It hardly matters which guideline it comes in; guidelines refer to each other all the time to avoid repeating stuff. --Kotniski (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an unrelenting crusade against MoS and a few of Mr Anderson's pet peeves there ("as usual, covers dashes badly ... made up in school one day"). I'm unsure I'd be quick to boast that Naming conventions covers article naming well—not yet it doesn't, which is why we're here to get on with the work; let's not throw stones.

Will someone please revert it? MoS makes quite a few mentions of Naming conventions; there seems to be a campaign to denigrate the converse, and to direct towards outlying articles that may be more to Mr Anderson's liking on the matter. He might also consult the definitions of civility and of edit-warring, which both appear to be relevant to this war of attrition. Third attempt in the past couple of months, is it, while there are fundamentals to fix here that require all our collaboration. Tony (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed MOS is; a crusade by a handful of Language Reformers to impose some provinciality on the whole of Wikipedia - as harmful as Anglo-American warring and without its excuses in childhood patriotism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, a half-dozen editors have hammered one together out of bits and pieces; the result is not anybody's usage - some would call it dubiously literate. Some fields of study do something quite different (often simple hyphenation); their students came to MOS to complain, and been brushed off by the usual Masters of Style; so the section is not what our readers will expect, and not consensus. It is only as a compromise that I retain the link to that waste of electrons at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• However, it has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions that most of the style guides ask for en dashes. I am not prepared to tread circles again with you on the matter: this is a re-run of umpteen cycles that are almost exactly the same. Tony (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You know, Tony, there is only one reason why literate editors care what those non-consensus essays say: to avoid having prose incompetently reworked by junior high school students who believe that MOS knows what it is talking about or represents an agreement of Wikipedia. It would be nice to have a useful Manual of Style, but it's not going to happen before our publication date. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of this page, all that matters is whether there is a situation where we would wish hyphen/dash use in a title to be different from the corresponding use in text. Personal prejudices aside, is there such a situation? If not, I don't see any problem in simply referring readers to the relevant MoS section to get the info on how dashes are used on WP. Referring them to other recommendations, however much some of us might personally wish those recommendations adopted, is just misleading.--Kotniski (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To avoid endorsing bad advice as policy? or is that too much to expect? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not bad advice - it's accurate advice as to how things are done on WP. Just as we "endorse" this weird system we have for naming monarchs, even though many people consider it bad advice, it conflicts with what reliable sources do etc. etc.--Kotniski (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, since the half-dozen who support it haven't bot-warred for this one, it doesn't even have that merit.

By contrast, our system of naming monarchs is what we actually do; it is also what we decide to do when the issue is discussed (or the monarchs would be moved - and I, at least, would modify the guideline). What the sources do is to name each of half a dozen monarchs Henry I, which would be fine for us - if only it were technically possible. But we can't have half-a-dozen articles all called Henry I, for a deeper reason than policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As the MOS is not a naming convention guideline so "see" is not appropriate. I think that the previous wording:

If dashes are used in page names, a redirect using hyphens must be provided (see also Manual of Style (dashes)).

should be used. -- PBS (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding also to the present text, which I think makes the distinction more clearly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Uniqueness

There is a sixth basic requirement: Article names must be unique; this causes much of the problem with the others. This sequence of edits added it, and tightened the others, but no change of guidance is intended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Enhance?

"The page is supplemented by naming guideline pages, which explain and enhance this naming conventions page."

Enhance in what way? Does it make the NC page more beautiful, more profound, more interesting? Surely it's enough that they explain; but "expand on" or "provide greater details of" would be the usual way to express this relationship, wouldn't it? Tony (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two kinds of guideline pages, and this is what was written until PBS found fault with it - there are some which explain in general how particular general principles are to be applied (WP:NC (common names) and so on), and there are some which contain conventions relating to particular subject areas (WP:NC (names and titles) and so on). Presumably PBS means that the first kind explain this page and the second kind enhance it - but why can't we just out loud what we mean in clear words? I don't understand this obsession with distinguishing and preserving the status of different types of page - nothing that isn't on this page is allowed to be called a "convention" (why on earth not?), you have to say "see ALSO MoS" because MoS isn't the right kind of guideline page... Why don't we just tell people what's going on instead of acting as if there's a kind of power battle between different pages?--Kotniski (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it really is an obsession with status. I see it on no other policy page – not NFC, not CIVILITY, not ADMIN. Yet there is precious little to be proud about in terms of this page as it stands; that is, if explaining naming conventions to the poor WP editors is the measure of quality. Is it? Frankly, I have never grappled with naming conventions because this page and its associated pages are so impenetrable and poorly organised. I'm sure a lot of editors are fed up with it, don't understand it, and therefore don't apply it. Can we lose this status thing and just get to work on making it accessible and clear to normal people? Yes, the fixation on relegat MoS to second-class status is hard to fathom. It would still be so if NC was worth its salt. Now, in terms of clarity and organisation, MoS is by no means perfect; but it leaves this page for dead. Tony (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The best way to understand our naming conventions is to ignore these pages entirely and go work in Requested Moves. That's where policy is set; this is where we masturbate over it reflect on it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree. Most of the people who work in RM are policy wonks who will do whatever this page tells them to do. Hesperian 23:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By "work in requested moves", I don't mean in order to listen to policy wonks. I mean in order to witness actual debates about actual pages, and to be smarter about it than the policy wonks. They don't set policy; the community does. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who is editing here who has a "fixation on relegat MoS to second-class status". But division of labour is desirable as it reduces conflict and confusion. Let us suppose that the naming conventions were to start to dictate how the style of the text in a page should appear (it is after all a policy). If it contradicted the style guidelines people would in my opinion rightly object because it would lead to confusion. Hence it is better that the content and the name of pages although related do not start to dictate to the other.

Enhance does not just mean to "more beautiful, more profound, more interesting", it also mean "To raise in degree, heighten, intensify", I considered augment, but that is not what I meant. As to another policy page that says something similar see WP:V "For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS). Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly." and also Wikipedia:policies and guidelines "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are standards that all users should follow. ... Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence."

Also I know that in the past there has been considerable tension between editors of the main MOS page and some of the supplementary guidelines, when they contradict the main MOS page.

"Presumably PBS means that the first kind explain this page and the second kind enhance it - but why can't we just out loud what we mean in clear words?" No that is not what I mean. AFAIK all he guidelines with the exception of WP:NC (flora) (and possibly, depending on the version currently reverted to, WP:naming conflicts ) explain enhance the naming conventions policy page. The simplest way to achieve consistency is for this policy to take precedence and the guidelines to explain and enhance/augment this policy. But the augmentations should not contradict the core values of the policy, or one thing is certain it leads to what Tony says "Frankly, I have never grappled with naming conventions because this page and its associated pages are so impenetrable and poorly organised." If it is clear that this is policy and the others are guidelines that must not contradict policy things are much simpler, because there is only one page that has to be consistent with itself. -- PBS (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I presume Tony is talking about me. In fact, I don't want to reduce MOS to second-class status; I would prefer a first-class MOS, which would be concise, contain only the guidance that was necessary for Wikipedia, reflect the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole, and be based on sources. That would be brief, coherent, and stable. We don't have that and we aren't going to get it for the foreseeable future, even though such a document would have the status Tony so desperately wants for it.

In the meantime, I prefer to maintain the distinction between the MOS and the Naming conventions, especially when writing policy. (If the ideal MOS were magically to come into being, I still would; but the point would be moot, since (there as here) the guidance on dashes would follow English usage, and so be compatible.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be pursuing a war instead of trying to help people looking for guidance. Are you proposing different conventions for the use of dashes/hyphens in page titles than in page content? If not, there seems no purpose except personal point-pushing in refusing to state explicitly that WP's guidance on this topic can be found in the relevant seciton of MoS.--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing writing no guidance for dashes into policy. Getting into that degree of detail, and that degree of disputability, is inappropriate for policy; and would be inappropriate no matter how good or how bad the rules were. As it is, anything more than a cross-reference is an invitation to self-appointed Language Reformers to start another bot war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As is often the case :-( Blueboar has said what I am trying to say more clearly, in this case in a reply to Xander on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict --PBS (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be an appeal to remove contradictions between guidelines and policy. Not to paper over them by just saying that policy takes precedence. In practice, as we know, this page does not have precedence over the more detailed guidelines. If I point out that Victoria of the United Kingdom is totally at odds with the principles of recognizability etc. espoused on this page, it will get me nowhere, because the monarchists insist that monarchs have to be given the made-up names that conform to their specific rule. It's the specific rules that take precedence in practice, not this page. Maybe sad, but you won't change anything by refusing to admit it in the wording of this page.--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am no monarchist, and I have considered the present text of WP:NCNT repeatedly. I have never seen a proposal to alter it significantly which had Consistency and did not ignore the requirement of Uniqueness. If you have one, make it there; if not, leave your claim that Henry IV of England is made up where you found it.

It may be that consistency between Henry and Victoria is unimportant, but that seems an odd position for someone who just promoted it to a general principle. (We could use the full form, Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; would this be an improvement?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from implying I claimed something I didn't (I never mentioned Henry IV) you are now arguing that Consistency trumps all else. I disagree; but the point is, the fact that there is a rule about it means I don't have a chance, since the rule is now what counts, not the reasoning supposedly behind it. Basically it's the same situation as with the dashes in MoS, except I'm prepared to acknowledge (and even want to acknowledge) that WP does something even though I strongly believe it shouldn't. Anyway, I've kind of lost track of what this was about.--Kotniski (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I've kind of lost track of what this was about. So it would appear. I have never argued that consistency trumps all else; I have argued, here and elsewhere, that which form of Victoria's name and titles is used makes little difference, save to consistency.

the fact that there is a rule about it means I don't have a chance, since the rule is now what counts, not the reasoning supposedly behind it. Precisely the opposite is true; the reasoning is what counts. If that reasoning, sketched in WP:NCNT, had not prevailed every time Her Late Majesty has been discussed, she would have been moved. Since WP:NCNT does what guidelines should do and documents what actually happens, it would have been changed too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not the mindset that was prevalent last time I saw the name of the present queen's article discussed. First change the rule, then consider moving the article, was the viewpoint that seemed to carry the day. --Kotniski (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"In practice, as we know, this page does not have precedence over the more detailed guidelines." But it does, I only know of one guideline which directly contradicts the principle of use the most common name. The all the other guidelines enhance the policy by explaining divergence based on the general principles which can b justified by "Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". --PBS (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

They may sometimes pay lip service, but the rules they actually come up with, and which are then implemented in practice, are sometimes diametrically opposed to recognizability. Or could be argued to be; but such arguments are not listened to once the rule is in place.--Kotniski (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Which guidelines do you have in mind? -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Military ships come to mind:

For ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix, name the article (Nationality) (type) (Name)

See, for example, Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. That's not a name, that a frickin' introductory paragraph! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that's a violation of "use the common name", not a violation of recognizability. But this illustrates why we need to emphasize the name in common name at WP:NC, and try to get all guidelines to follow it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, however, an application of Precision. Admiral Kutnetsov is a perfectly good name, but is ambiguous; if it has a primary referent, that referent is the human being Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov, not the ship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The reverting needs to stop

It is disappointing that, as Kotniski has observed, no one seems willing to use the draft page I created the other day. Can I remind users that treating the policy page like a sandbox is unacceptable. I intend to ask for the page to be locked if the instability continues.

Can we agree here to create another draft page and work on that? Possibly one with a talk page (rather than the incompetent job I did of creating the page) would be more helpful, so the discussion can move directly there. Tony (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a draft page would help much (it will just give a certain person an excuse to restore the "stable" version of the page and blank out all the clarifying improvements that have been made over the last few days), but if it's clear that there's a difference of opinion about something, we must be prepared to discuss reasonably and in terms of making the accepted practice (whatever our views on it) clear to readers of these pages. --Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in favour of returning to an older version while we discuss the changes. Given that the page is now larger (51,069 bytes) than the version I reverted to yesterday (49,708 bytes) what do you think are the improvements that have been made over the last few days? --PBS (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The major change is WP:NC#Overview. Do you disagree with it on substance? If not, it does seem useful to pull together our goals and constraints into one visible section, and in the long run it may lead to shortening elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit clash) I am not against a major overhaul of this policy to make it clearer, but I made the point yesterday that major content changes can cause instability particularly when we have a number of editors who have yet to reach a consensus on some of the underlying principles which because the older wording is unclear, have been fudged for a long time. My own approach would be to go back to the stable version I suggested yesterday, and develop a new version for which the editors involved agree and then implement it. My observation is that Kotniski has suggested that a desirable goal is that the policy is more succinct, yet to date it as got larger and not smaller. I thought that the old first section also pulled our goals and constraints into one visible section and it was far shorter and easy to quote. -- PBS (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really; it effectively just mentioned one of the goals, which was highly misleading. The reason it's got longer is that we are now honest and state them all explicitly. We will eventually achieve succintness as we find that we no longer need to say certain things in certain places because they're covered by what we have right at the start.--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The old wording did not mention precision and consistency as goals, nor uniqueness as a constraint. Another way to ahorten would be to retain the key-words, but, instead of a paragraph after each point, link to the general rule down below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

One such change would be to take the time-honoured The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists out of Common name, and insert it in Recognizability head of the Overview; it always has been a general principle, and this would permit shortening of that bullet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Kotniski (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For me, the most important thing about the rewrites is that we spell out a list of principles, and explain that there is no system of trumps, but rather that decisions are reached by a consensus of editors, discussing particular cases, keeping those principles in mind. Any language about "this trumps that" is cancer, to my way of thinking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What about situations where, in practice, the consensus is that something does trump something else? You said yourself that specific guidelines tend to outweigh the general ones - why should we not inform editors that this is the case?--Kotniski (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I said that specific naming conventions tend to take precedence in many real-wiki cases. There's nothing black-and-white about, and the policy page, if it's to be accurate, should make that clear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Because they don't. Saying so would lead to guidelines all going their own directions, as Xandar would have his pet passage of WP:Naming conflict go. Guidelines are the balance between these principles in specific contexts, as currently seems best to us; no guideline can override the objectives for which the naming guidelines are made. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying so would not lead to that if it's done carefully, and emphasizes that all of these principles exist in a state of dynamic tension. It's not about trumps, either one way or the other. I don't consider you a reliable source regarding Xandar's motivations, by the way, nor do I consider such accusations helpful in the least. Do you know what number I'm thinking of, or does your ESP only extend to thoughts about Wikipedia policy? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not Apéry's constant, is it? But I don't need telepathy to read Xandar's claims, often repeated, that this policy this policy defers to the passages of WP:Naming conflict on self-identification. (If PBS is annoyed, I think it is this claim that did it - judging by his edit, replying immediately.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's n- Am I getting you and PBS mixed up now? Are you both picking on Xandar in the wrong way? Come now... let's not model Xandar's behavior back to him, please? Pretty please? Just find a way of talking about it without saying who wants what. Please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)It's between ζ(3) and 2.

Spoilsport. OK, I guess. <sulk> Phi? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Way too obvious. But warmer, in absolute value, if not number theoretically. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

PMAnderson seems set on changing the policy pages by stealth in order to help him get the results they want on Naming conflict, and the naming of specific articles. This is gaming the system. The convention PMAnderson wants to eliminate has been stable for years and worked well, and no argument or problem has been raised against it other than in his and his few allies opinion, it "contradicts" the policy page. (Hence the determination to get rid of a certain couple of sentences here that torpedo that argument -and the continual reversion wars) I didn't write the convention on the naming of self-identifying entities. It's been there with no problems since 2005. It solves a lot of problems and helps the encyclopedia. Therefore I and fellow editors are not prepared to see it changed by a small clique for factional reasons. Xandar 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you figured out yet which number I'm thinking of Xandar? Here's a clue: SAYING THAT SOMEONE SEEMS INTENT ON DOING SOMETHING BY STEALTH IS a DOWNRIGHT STUPID MOVE, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ADVANCE YOUR POSITION AT ALL, BUT IT CONVINCES EVERYONE THAT YOU'RE STUCK IN AN INFANTILE, COMBATIVE, CONCLUSION-JUMPING MINDSET. GET SMART, STOP TALKING ABOUT OTHERS' MOTIVATIONS, AND ARGUE LIKE A %^&*##@ ADULT. Another clue: it's between 1 and 2. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus you may think that but I do not think your view is the common one, Consensus includes weighting for policy and guidelines. Although the wording varies from time to time the Consensus policy warns about a local consensus amoung a limited group of editors (WP:CONSENSUS). Similar things can happen with the advise in guidelines which are not widely exposed to the community in general, for example see this now historical proposals Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Czech) which was for a short time a guideline. -- PBS (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not common enough. There is a widespread superstition that experienced Wikipedians such as yourself should be trying to help combat, and not reinforcing by capitulating to the legalistic interpretation. I'm certain that isn't your intent, but it's the effect of the arguments you're making.

I'm certainly not making the case for a local consensus somehow overriding a more broad-based one. If my comments come across that way, then I need to be more careful. From years in Requested Moves, I can testify that very many specific naming conventions have been broadly accepted. You're entirely right to point out that others have not. That's what we need to make clear. None of this is black-and-white. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar this is not a change in policy it is what the naming conventions policy has said for a long time, and it is supported by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines --PBS (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, no human has the power to change policy by editing a page. Repeat this 100 times each night before bed. Policy is what it is; this page might become more or less accurate through editing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are saying! Policy is not a shadow of a metaphysical chair. What appears on this page and in the guidelines is quoted on article talk pages. I too am an old hand at WP:RM and personally I follow the policy and guidelines when making decisions on page moves. I always work from the centre outwards. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy is what we do in fact agree on as goals. Therefore what we actually on average do at WP:RM is policy; so are the reasons which are actually consistently persuasive. This page is a reasonably successful effort to describe policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - re to PBS) You don't understand? Well, it's this: policy pages are where we attempt to record best practices. Best practices are determined in the field, and written down later. Sometimes policy lags behind actual practice. Sometimes, policy pages go off the rails and become silly. For the underlying principles, I recommend reading WP:PPP and WP:WIARM. You could also talk with User:Kim Bruning or User:Radiant. They understand this idea a lot better than most, and articulate it well. It's basically just a consequence of IAR. Wikipedia is not a rules-game. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kim and I know each other well! I have also discussed things in the past with Radiant. Policy pages are not just a record of what is done, they are part of a positive feedback loop. People look at policy and guidelines and quote both to help make decision on article talk page, so they reinforce what is written in the policy and guidelines. Let me give you an example: there a sentence "Where articles have descriptive names, they must be neutrally worded.", it was not put into the policy because of best practice it was put in to exclude bad practice! (as the [4] shows). Once the wording was in this policy people could quote it and it becomes part of best practice. --PBS (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is not the only time Xandar has claimed dishonorable motives; Knepferle's protest is more eloquent than I. As far as I can tell, the editing which has affected Xandar's pet passages (of WP:NC, that is) has not been mine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If Xandar has any idea what's good for him, he'll learn very quickly to stop claiming dishonorable motives. Such claims do him no service, nor his argument. The fact that PBS is making reciprocal claims is perhaps more disappointing, because he really, really should know better. I don't know what's going on there. They obviously both mean the best, but can't seem to rise above playground tactics. What a shame... -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I've left notes for both users, explaining the situation. Hopefully we've heard the last of it, and will be able to discuss this policy page without having to listen to more irrelevancies about who thinks who has it in for what. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read the comment you have placed on my talk page and I have no idea what you are talking about! But I'll comment further on this on your talk page.--PBS (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I got you mixed up with PMAnderson, who made a remark about Xandar's nefarious motives. I somehow thought that was you, in my stupidity. I'm sorry. I think I'll step away from this page for a little bit now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have got mixed up about a lot of things GTB, especially blundering in with biased one-sided rantings on my talk page. If you check the Naming conflict talk-page you will see non-stop denigration of my motives by PMA and others - as well as here. I thionk you need to start looking at the people who are in the process of deleting important elements of policy anfd guidance without even local consensus and by a process of constant edit-warring. Xandar 20:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. So you still think that policy consists of words on a page, and you still think that I'm picking on poor little you. The question is, can you stop maligning the motives of others? I'm willing to be the idiot here, are you willing to behave honorably? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to discuss issues and principles. But there's been precious little of that, and a lot of significantly changing the policy-page on the run, and when the changes are reverted, instead of trying to discuss them or come to agreement, the controversial changes are put back on the page an edit-warring sequence. That is NOT how these things are intended to operate. And significant changes need greater community consensus than normal - not less. Xandar 20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Now you're talking. Keep that up, and leave motives out of it. If others disparage your motives, test me and see if I'm one-sided. I'm ready. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Restore to stable version; then work on draft

If this page is restored to the stable version it was in before the recent flurry of changes, then it would make sense to work on a draft. But leaving it in an unstable condition while we work on a draft indefinitely is not acceptable. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia page is a draft. --Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's well said. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with B2C. While Wikipedia pages my be subject to alteration, the page that exists is not a draft it is the current version. An policy page that is subject to frequent edit that contradict each other is not good for the project. It is better to work on out differences on a draft version and keep changes to the policy page to a minimum. --PBS (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Strenuously disagree. At this point, edits to the policy page can be divided into two classes:

1. Unobjectionable polishing; and
2. An edit war over a sentence that doesn't matter.

Neither is grounds for dumping a week of progress. Hesperian 23:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Common name

One question at hand is whether Common Names is an objective, a goal in itself, ranking with Consistency, say, as an inherent good. In one case, we can say:

• Common name - Wikipedia article titles identify the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of each article. When naming articles, use the name most commonly used to refer to the topic by most English speakers. This is often cited as the "Principle of least astonishment" and following it achieves consistency in article naming throughout Wikipedia.

in the other we can say

• Recognizability – Article titles are those which most English speakers will understand from the title what the article is about. This is often cited as the "Principle of least astonishment".
• Prevalence in reliable sources – Since Wikipedia is source-based, article titles reflect the usage of reliable sources, on which the articles are based. This is closely related to recognizability, as the dominant use in sources is likely to be recognized by most readers.
• Consistency – Similar articles are generally given similar titles. This is often achieved by specific naming conventions being adopted for specific types of articles

This is a hair-thin dispute; but it can be resolved. The test is this: If one asks, "Why use common names?", that can be answered in other terms: because readers will understand them. If one asks: "Why use terms readers can understand?", the only reasons are restatements: "Because we write to be understood". Intelligibility is an end in itself.

On this analysis, common names are a means, although a very useful means, and one we should normally employ. I deny, by the way, that using common names achieves consistency, or is indeed always possible; those who assert this should state what names they would give Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, and Victoria of the United Kingdom (for bonus credit, what name should be given to Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden when she succeeds?) and then explain how the choices are consistent. This would imply that the ends it serves should be treated differently; I see no reason why, as in this edit (which did not last long enough to be seen), it should not be mentioned in the header - just not in the same list as the reasons for it. Discussion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the distinction between "common name" and recognizability can be seen with this example, which I just mentioned above: Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. That's certainly recognizable, but that title is not (merely) a name, much less a "common name". That's why I think common name needs to be prominent. To illustrate with an extreme example, I'm sure we can all agree that we don't want Paris moved to French capital city Paris, or Madonna (entertainer) moved to American entertainer Madonna. These are examples of over-precision, but they are also examples of titles going beyond merely specifying in the title the most common name plus disambiguatory information in parenthesis as required. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And, as above, this is why Common Name, by itself, cannot be the sole convention. Admiral Kuznetsov is a perfectly good name; but it is ambiguous. If it has a primary meaning, that meaning is Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov, the human being, not the ship. If it does not, we should use it for a dab page, not an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Serge Born2 Cycle may not recognize this, but he has weakened the case for common names, not strengthened it; his text gives no reason to use them. Patently, there are readers who do not regard the use of common names as self-evident; Serge's text (the first above) gives them no reason to accept that use, except an unclear invocation of the Principle of Least Astonishment (why is that good?) and the edict of the dozen of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle's distinction between common name and recognizable is useful. It is usually better to use a name than a descriptive phrase, even if the phrase is more informative. But this is an argument for "name", and says nothing about "common" v "recognizable". I really think "recognizable" is more fundamental than "common" (Why do we want a commonly used name? Because they are recognizable. The reverse does not hold.) This suggests that the solution may lie in "recognizable name".

Another option is to expand the "prevalence in reliable sources" section to say that we like these names because they yield what one would expect: a recognizable name in the right register—the old "shit" v "feces" argument. If recognizable is used in this context, it may not be worth quibbling over it in the other context.

Hesperian 23:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Register

The more I think about it, the more I think register is crucial here. Without a mention of register, "use the name most commonly used to refer to the topic by most English speakers" is simply false. Kotniski's "shit" versus "feces" argument gives it the lie.

It all comes down to the principle of least surprise. Yes, if readers are familiar with a name, they will expect us to use that name. But it is also the case that readers expect use to use a formal register. Ultimately "feces" defeats "shit" because "familiar", "common" and "recognisable" are all poor surrogates for the real underlying principle, which is the principle of least surprise.

Hesperian 00:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions

our naming conventions, guidelines ... include specific exceptions to the general criteria

This is a novel principle. It was not here at the beginning of the month; it has never been in this text, and is contrary to WP:POL, which says that policy overrules guidelines. What guidelines do do is advise which principle to follow when the criteria conflict, as they will - being distinct principles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a novel principle, it is a long-standing one. Many of the guidelines document exceptions to general policy statements. This is a fact. The statement was taken out of its longstanding consensus position at the head of the "Use Common Names" section. When it was suggested that it would be better placed in the Overview section, I tried moving it there. Xandar 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The wording Xandar cites is:

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline

That is to say, there may be exceptions to Common Names (or any one of the other principles) - when another principle conflicts with it. That's inherent in having more than one principle - as we must, to have any useful guidance and still recognize Uniqueness. The novel wording above asserts that it is possible and desirable for guidelines to make exceptions to all the principles enunciated by this page. That is both new and against consensus.

What guidelines can do is advise on what happens when the principles here conflict, as the page now says:

our naming conventions, guidelines which explain these principles and objectives further, advise on managing conflicts between them, and apply them to specific fields.

third party comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No. The sentence clearly says "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication". It's quite clear. There are none of the cavills that PMAnderson wants to add. It says nothing about other "principles". It just says that other naming conventions indicate exceptions, which arise in the cases covered by the particular convention. This is quite a simple and useful common-sense approach, reflecting what really happens on Wikipedia. That is the existing consensus as proven by the wording and the same principle was reaffirmed a few weeks ago on this page. Xandar 01:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen people read sentences out of context before; but reading a subordinate clause independently of the sentence of which it is part is new. The whole sentence is quoted above; it deals with exceptions to WP:NC#Use common names, which do (and must) exist, if only because two articles can have the same most common name, but can't have the same title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is usually a bad sign when you are the only person proclaiming the absense of consensus on some point.

That makes nine reverts in just over three days. I'm pissed off that we have actually been making progress on this page, and it is being disrupted by Xandar's repeated fly-in fly-out reverts, motivated by a dispute that has nothing to do with us. I've reported this to ANI.

Hesperian 01:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You can be as Pissed off as you like, hesperian, you and your friends are NOT GETTING AWAY with changing long-standing policy without consensus. No matter how you shout and scream and continue revert wars. The people disrupting the page are those insisting on making substantive policy changes without consensus. I am merely reverting vandalism to the policy page. Xandar 01:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite Septentrionalis and B2C seem to be alone here in stating that there aren't or shouldn't be exceptions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Previously this policy attempted to make rules, and therefore it also had to state exceptions. Now it states principles, and waits to see what is the consensus on how to meet and balance those principles. There is no longer such a thing as exceptions, because there are no rules to make exception to. The people working here have very mixed views on the extent to which a specific convention may better reflect consensus than this general one does; but I think we all agree that at this point an explicit statement on "exceptions" is redundant at best, and at worst encourages people to read this policy as rule-based.

The irony is that the people who were pushing for the ability to make exceptions are the biggest winners here. They've won a lot more than the ability to make exceptions: the very rules that exceptions were being made to have been set aside, and replaced with broad principles. But instead of celebrating, they are suspiciously eyeing off their new freedoms, trying to figure out how they've been shafted. It would be funny if it weren't tragic. Hesperian 06:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "exceptions" is too strong, but in some fields, some of the principles (and certainly, some of the prinicpals) should be "disregarded", as defined by subarticles. Perhaps that's a better concept, to work with, but I'm not sure how to word it. I think we need it specified that conventions for specific fields in subarticles can lead to disregarding #Common name, for instance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. :-) Hesperian 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian and others claim on THIS page that "the policy is not rule-based" - so we don't need to maintain the clear statement that it has exceptions. However on other pages, a very different line is being pushed - that conventions (- like WP:Naming conflict) and article pages, need to be radically changed against consensus in order not to "contradict" this policy page. There therefore needs to be clear confirmation remaining on the policy page that the conventions are exceptions and not contradictions. Personal "assurances" from individual editors will not suffice - particularly in the light of what is going on elsewhere - and the attempts to silence opposition to their changes. 212.140.128.142 (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that Xandar is currently blocked, and that this IP has been previously suspected of being used by him here Knepflerle (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Boiling it down

After much reflection, I think the foundation of this policy is one constraint and two goals.

Constraint: Each article must have a unique name.

Goal: Choose a title that conveys the topic to the reader.

Familiarity/recognizability emerges from this. So does precision.

Goal: Choose a title that conveys that the article content can be trusted.

We want to look like we are well organised and know what we are doing. The use of a formal register emerges from this ("feces" not "shit"). So does the desire to apply consistent names across groups of articles. So does the push for concise names rather than long-winded descriptions. So does the (much-maligned and often in conflict with the other goal, but nonetheless present) desire to designate things by their technically correct / official / canonical / standardised names ("Metallica (album)" not "The Black Album").

And that's it. The other two things we've been throwing around are red herrings:

Red herring: use the most common name according to usage in reliable sources.

This is a method that usually leads to us achieving the goals listed above. In PMA's words, it is a means not an end.

Red herring: Follow the principle of least surprise.

This gives us a rough measure of our success. It too is a means not an end.

Hesperian 00:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistency has other benefits, like predictability (I can tell where the monarchs of England and France are), and I'm not really convinced by the goal of appearance. We're not a reliable source, and looking like one could be characterized as misrepresentation.

But if this is not entirely right, it is in the right direction. Utility might be better for the second goal: We want to be well-organized, not just appear to be; we want to have the article title be feces, because readers will expect it to be there - and can cite it without complaints from their editing systems; we want to be concise, because concise titles save everybody work; and so on. Let me go away and think about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say accuracy was a key goal. Xandar 01:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy is a largely meaningless goal. What is the "accurate" name of Kiev? But we can say which name tells the reader which city we are talking about; the one she has heard before and will recognize. See accuracy and precision for the difference between this and Precision: the distinction between Kiev and Kiev Oblast is Precision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy is only key to the extent that it is expected from our readers. Most of our readers would mock us if we moved momentum to impetus, because this is an inaccuracy they do not expect and will not accept. Yet the same readers are perfectly happy that Gulliver's Travels is not located at its actual title, Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of several Ships, because this inaccuracy is expected and acceptable. Why? Because everyone does it. Thus accuracy is merely a poor surrogate for usage. Hesperian 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But it is better and more accurate to say Inuit rather than Eskimo, or Dalit rather than untouchable. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is better and more accurate than "Mormon Church", and Canadian Forces Maritime Command is more accurate than the more popular Canadian Navy. Xandar 02:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Inuit" is more precise than "Eskimo". "CoJCoLDS" is more precise than "Mormon Church". Your last example comes under what I called the "desire to designate things by their technically correct / official / canonical / standardised names". You may refer to as accuracy if you wish, though I think doing so caused more problems than it solves. Hesperian 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Or, depending on where you are, "Inuit" is more restrictive than "Eskimo." Most Yup'ik in Alaska consider themselves to be "Eskimo" but not "Inuit". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Choose a title that conveys the topic to the reader." is not a goal because I can choose a title in French (or Latin) which conveys the topic to the reader, but that is not a "goal". What is a goal is to "choose the most meaningful title that conveys a the topic to the reader". how do choose such a name? why by looking to see what reliable sources in English use. -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We presume (should we state explicitly?) that the reader speaks English; we do not assume that he speaks French or Latin, so the French or Latin title must fail to convey the topic to him, unless it is one of those cases (chauffeur, De rerum natura) in which a foreign phrase has been adopted into English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The mind likes seeing patterns even when they are not there (eg the canals on Mars). It is not a good idea to promote consistency along side common name and precision on this policy page, as it can be used to undermine both. I have used "Nazi Germany occupation of ..." as an example before because consistency would encourage its use, even when "German occupation of ..." or "Occupation of ..." would be sufficient (depending on the country different precision is need if the name is to be unambiguous). The article name should be precise but unambiguous. -- PBS (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Has no one anything to say on my last comment in this section? -- PBS (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not so much "promoting" it as telling people that it plays a big part. You and I might not like it, but in practice names like "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" get adopted, not because they're common or precise, but simply because people like to see certain patterns. Until we can persuade the community to change that way of thinking, this page has to reflect it.--Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be advised in a guideline, but having it in policy alongside the other statements will cause no end of problems with article names being common or precise, because some think that names like "Nazi Germany occupation of ..." makes a set. -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Format proposal

The present Overview section is performing the function usually expected of the intro. If we got rid of the header, and the sentence It consists of this overview, some general principles explaining how the criteria listed here are achieved, and a set of conventions applied to articles as a whole, or those in particular subject areas. which duplicates the TOC immediately above it, we would shorten the page slightly and adopt a more standard format.

While this pales in comparison with the vital issues in the sections above, it may last longer. Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done as part of a rewrite inspired by the section above. No change of policy intended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. Hesperian 03:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What are conventions?

As I look at the page at this precise moment, the first sentence says "The naming conventions page sets out our policy... It is supplemented by our naming conventions, guidelines which..." Something's clearly weird here. If "our naming conventions" specifically excludes the policy page, then we'd better change this page's present title. (Of course, you could argue that being titled "Naming conventions" means that it's about naming conventions, not that it is naming conventions, but that's highly misleading to everyone, particularly since the naming conventions are not the main topic of this page.)

To me, it seems natural that the word "conventions" should refer to the specific arrangements we've adopted (ships have to be titled this way, monarchs that way) rather than the general principles that are the focus of this page. So I would propose renaming this page to something like WP:Article naming, as I believe has been suggested before. But if we want to keep it at its present title, then something has to be done about that sentence.--Kotniski (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The main topic of this page are the conventions. This is the naming conventions page. The other pages are guidelines to this page. As I have said several times before I think we should rename this page so that this is made clear. I put in a RM last year but few people took part and we could not agree on a name, so the page was not moved. -- PBS (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand - if you believe that "this is the naming conventions page" (as its current name implies), then why do you want to rename it? --Kotniski (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I explained my reasons in the RM last year. -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So your preferred name is WP:Naming convention? I'm not convinced the -s makes much difference (and I don't see enough uniformity in our practices to justify saying that we have a single convention), but let's see what others think.--Kotniski (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I said I explained my reasons last year, I did not say that I chose the best name last year. I put in the WP:RM with multiple options, because was not sure what would be the best name. My first choices were "Naming convention" and "Article naming policy" but I struck out "Article naming policy" as one of my choices in the hope that those taking part in the debate would coalesce around "Naming convention" because it involved the minimum change in the name to effect the change I wanted to implement. However others did not follow my lead so the result was no change. I am not against "Article naming" (although I thought "Article naming policy" was better). -- PBS (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If this were "Article naming policy" and the others were "Article naming (ships)" or whatever, then the relationship would be clearer than if we use "Article naming" and "Article naming (ships)" which given the usual Wikipedia disambiguation usage could end up with the same confusion as we currently have. --PBS (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to retaining "Naming conventions (ships)" and so on, since these specific-topic pages do contain "conventions", as I intuitively understand the word.--Kotniski (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• PBS, "Article naming" would be soooo much better. Let's call a spade a spade. Will you launch another RM, please? I agree with Kotniski's points. Tony (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind doing so (and I think it ought to be a multi-name choice like last year and not just a two name race), but given that some have accused me of owning the page would it not be better if it were proposed by someone else? --PBS (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly support your move; I'm sure there'll be others who'll do so, too. Tony (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS, can you explain to me why Wikipedia:Naming conventions is a convention, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) is not? After all, they both have conventions in their name. I could understand if you said "This is policy; the other pages are guidelines." But I don't know how to parse your assertion that "This is convention; the other pages are guidelines". Hesperian 13:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The conventions are contained withing the naming conventions page, comics is a guideline to the conventions. Last year I chose "naming convention" in the hope that it would be accepted as a compromise name (note the strike out). It was not my preferred choice but "naming convention" had the advantage that people were less likely to confuse policy and guidelines, and I agree it is not the clearest name. --PBS (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Predictable names

I have reverted the change which took the page away from recognizable to predictable because predictable implies consistency and "descriptive names" coined by editors rather than names based on reliable sources. One of the things that goes out of the window with predictable names is precision, as editors tend to tack on words to names to make them into groups eg "Nazi German occupation of ..." even though there may never have been any other German occupation of the country making the word Nazi superfluous. --PBS (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it implies descriptive names. If a topic has a familiar name, then to spurn it in favour of a descriptive name would be unpredictable, I should think.

I agree that it applies consistency, somewhat. It also implies recognizability, however. For example, surely "Queen Victoria" is more predictable than "Victoria of the United Kingdom", even though the latter is consistent with other articles. Considering that "predictable" implies a tension between familiarity and consistency, and that tension really does exist in naming, it did seem quite appropriate to me.

But if you're happier with PMA's version, let's stick with that for now and see how it shakes out over time.

Hesperian 11:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we want to get too bogged down in philosophy - of course everyone will have their own way of expressing these ideas, but the important thing is to get the practical points across clearly to people reading this page.--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical hair-splitting is often good... but it sure isn't when real progress is happening but fragile. Onwards and upwards! Hesperian 12:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If we don't do philosophical hair=splitting at some point, the nationalists will do it for us. But whether we need it right now is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Title should be (most common) NAME of article topic

I see nothing in the overview that indicates the title of an article should be the name of the topic of the article, much less the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of the article. "Easy to find" makes a vague reference to the latter notion, but it hardly stands out the way it used to.

Perhaps that is the intent, but, if so, then this naming policy currently barely reflects how the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are actually named. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That statement is (with "most common") is not policy, or even a guideline. However, the title of an article (generally) being a name of the topic probably should be said, although the Principle of Least Surprise suggests it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's stated or not (and it used to be), that is the de facto policy implemented in the naming of the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, and has always been. The official policy should reflect that reality. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To remedy this, I altered the description of "recognizable" to this:

• Recognizable – Proper article titles specify what the name of the subject of the article is in English; this implies that, when possible, an article title will be the name most commonly used in English to refer to the subject of the article. This is often cited as the "Principle of Least Astonishment".

--Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I could go with that (if some wording about exceptions or deweighting of principles appears in the lead), except that it may need to be made clear that "the name of ... in English" is not necessarily the "English name"; if the "English name" is rarely used in English, than the name in the most common foreign language should be used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions are unacceptable, it is like having exceptions in one of the main content policies.

B2c I thought that "Convention: Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize – usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English." was a convention that covered this. --PBS (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions to the general rules are necessary; however, as long as it's clear that subarticles (specific "naming conventions") can override ("interpret" is not adequate) specific conventions here, I consider my "exception" requirement met. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Subconventions may override one principle because another conflicts with it; but suppose a subconvention said all articles on topology must have names ending with "...on wheels", like homotopy theory on wheels?

That's the sort of thing I'm worrried about: a subconvention being hijacked by a small group of people who want to use it to push some point of view, whether or not is beneficial to the encyclopedia. I think the present wording avoids this problem, but would like a chance to consider it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I see your problem; I don't see that a wording without some specific "override" or "disregard" provisions can meet the required flexibility to include our current plant and city naming convention. In fact B2C has already (mis)interpreted WP:NCGN as not overriding what he considers to be WP:NC (CN). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the city naming convention is a conflict between Recognizability (and its offshoot, Common Names) and Consistency. Similarly, the flora naming convention is a conflict between Consistency on one hand and Recognizability and Ease of Finding on the other; which do you recognise, Flowering Dogwood or Cornus florida? On this page, there is an explicit acknowledgement that guidelines adivse on managing such conflict; do we need overriding languag beyond that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine any rational convention which wouldn't be in support of one of the conventions presently listed (changing "Common Nane" back to "Recognizability", anyway), but then, I wouldn't have imagined B2C's previous interpretation nor the bizarre interpretations of consensus in the date linking fiasco. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How about the convention which brought me back here? A few paragraphs in a convention can be read, if you're determined enough, as affirming a principle Always use self-identifying names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Allowing unlimited exceptions nullifies point of having policy

What's the point of having a policy if unlimited exceptions are allowed? A few exceptions, on a per-article basis, (like Fixed-wing aircraft), are true and very limited exceptions (and allowable per WP:IAR if nothing else). That's one thing. But to have guidelines for any group of articles to override the general policy? That effectively nullifies the policy. The broad unlimited exceptions render "policy" to not even be a guideline, much less true policy.

The general policy should be broad enough to encompass, not contradict, any reasonable specific guideline. A contradiction (or need to "override") between general naming policy and any more specific guideline should always indicate a need to change the general to be broader, or to alter the more specific to be in line with the general policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The general policy you are proposing above (changing "Recognizable" to "Common Name") requires exceptions. Do you wish to reconsider. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Only a policy so broad as to be useless would not require at least some exceptions on a per article basis. But the broadly followed use the most commonly used name as the title of the article convention does not require even a single guideline for any group of articles to be an exception. Frankly, it's disappointing and disheartening to see that some very experienced editors still believe that it does.

Every guideline could easily be brought into compliance with use the most commonly used name as the title of the article. It happened with TV episode names a few years ago, and I see no reason it can't happen with every single other guideline.

But, of course, there will always be exceptions on a per-article basis, in particular when the most common name cannot be used for a given article due to conflicts with other uses of that name (e.g., Paris, Texas, James Stewart (actor), etc.), or when the most commonly used name cannot be determined (e.g, Fixed-winged aircraft). But there is no reason use the most commonly used name as the title of the article cannot be the default rule used for naming articles within any group, where more specific dab rules are only applied when exceptions are required on a per article basis.

Now, do you wish to reconsider? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, there are exceptions to the rule (on a per article basis), and there are rules that make exceptions the rule. I would think we would want the former, but not the latter. Yet when we have more specific naming guidelines that override the general naming policy, what results is exceptions are the rule, and the general policy is made essentially pointless.

We certainly want more specific guideline that clarify and expand on what the general guidelines are for a particular group of articles, especially to provide guidance on what to do when it is not possible to follow the general rule in some particular case for some reason. But I honestly see no point in even having general policy and guidelines if more specific guidelines contradict or "override" what the general policy and guidelines say to do even in cases where the general policy and guidelines can be followed. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP article titles must be precise??? Since when?

This meaning of precise, as per the current wording in the policy, is generally not reflected in Wikipedia article titles, nor has ever been:

Precise – Good article titles are precise and unambiguous; if the title identifies precisely what the subject of the article is, readers will not have to go into the body of the article to find whether they're in the right place; excessive precision does nothing for them. In cases where otherwise natural titles are ambiguous, precision is achieved through disambiguation.

Precision in article titles has only been emphasized in Wikipedia for the purpose of disambiguation, and only when necessary. For example, WP:PRECISION states:

if the subject of the article is the primary meaning of the word or phrase, or if it is unlikely that the other meanings will have Wikipedia articles, then the article may be titled with that word or phrase alone.

The wording above goes way beyond that, implying that article titles should be more precise than is merely necessary to not be ambiguous with other uses of that name in Wikipedia, if the more precise title identifies precisely what the subject of the article is, while the precise (but not ambiguous) title does not.

Again, I obtain an example by clicking on WP:RANDOM. I got Point Lobos Ranch. Is this precise? Apparently, it's unambiguous (there is no other Point Lobos Ranch). But it still does not "precisely [identify] what the subject of the article is". Point Lobos Ranch, potential state park in central California would be more precise.

The notion that the title of an article should precisely identify what the subject of the article is is novel to Wikipedia, and has no place in this policy. If nothing else, it directly contradicts the very notion of a primary topic. The title of an article that is the primary topic for its name is inherently imprecise. There is nothing precise about the name Paris. Giving "precision" equal billing, if you will, to "recognizable", is not being consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia article naming at all.

In fact, the two goals of using a name and precision in article titles are inherently conflicted. Names are rarely precise; descriptions are precise. The very idea of applying precision to a name is absurd.

The only realm in which the precision and names are not in conflict, that I can think of, is scientific names of plants and animals. Coincidence? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Scientific names are valuable not because they are precise but rather because they are unambiguous.

I see your point about precision, and I actually somewhat agree. But another factor is accuracy. To call the city in France "Paris" is imprecise, but to call it "Île-de-France" or "Enclos-St-Laurent" is inaccurate. Is it okay to use an inaccurate name for an article if it is easily recognizable?--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, precision is in the eye of the beholder. Tony (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But precision has always been advocated here, and should still be. Born2cycle is tilting at windmills: Point Lobos Ranch is a proper name, and apparently a unique proper name - as such it identifies one thing in the universe, which is as much precision as anybody could reasonably require. The text he removed warns against excessive precision; his preposterous example is what is meant by that. Let me see if I can word it to guard against such a reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

specific and common in the lead

I have removed specific in several places from the lead. From "specific guidelines", because guidelines also cover general points, and from in front of recognizable, because I do not think it adds clarity and could probably makes the statement less clear.

I removed "and describe situations in which specific priniciples may be considered less applicable than other principles" because it is already stated in that sentence more succinctly, with "advise on managing conflicts between them, expand on the general conventions".

I have also removed "common name" from the introduction. It is already mentioned in what is now the the first section, and repeating it in slightly different wording does not bring clarity to this policy.

These are all changes to the lead which ought to be a summary of what comes below. We do not have to place all the details into the lead, there is a lot of space further down to include specifics. -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusion with articles named after musicians

• I really don't see the need for different naming conventions for different musicians. For example, we have Fergie (singer), Usher (entertainer) and Common (artist). Why can't they all be one thing? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Song naming

I have been told that song articles should take the name of the first artist who recorded it, no matter whose version is the most famous (e.g. Addicted (Cheryl Wheeler song), even though Dan Seals was the only artist to release it as a single). But what if the original and most famous versions have different titles, as in Wild One (Faith Hill song)? The song was recorded by a group called Evangline about a year before Faith's version came out, but Evangeline's was called "She's a Wild One." The Faith Hill version is the more recognizable version, so the article should have some form of "Wild One" as the title, and not "She's a Wild One." So should it stay "Wild One (Faith Hill song)" or "Wild One (Evangeline song)"? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it seems that the current name would be the most helpful to readers. In fact, if the "first artist" rule really is a rule, then it doesn't sound like a good one. --Kotniski (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would leave it at its current title if that's where most people would look for it, but would redirect She's a Wild One and Wild One (Evangeline song) there. Station1 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tag

user:Xandar please explain this edit to the section "General conventions and guidelines" because over the last few days there has not been any editing of this section. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: In WP:Naming Conventions, should the specific exceptions to "Use Common Name" be removed?

On WP:Naming conventions the text in the section of policy now headed Use Common name has been significantly changed. All reference to exceptions to the use of the most Common names, as set out in the various individual naming conventions, has been removed. The policy originally read:

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline.) Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

It has been amended by a number of editors to read:

Convention: Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize – usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Does the removal of exceptions to "Use Common name" from the policy page have agreement? Xandar 21:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• The removal of the term exceptions from the article seems to have consensus, although I don't agree with it. However, above, it should still be noted before the individual principles that that subarticles can arbitrate conflicts between the principles, so that no specific exceptions to individual principles is required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposed change of policy on the grounds that the specific Wikipedia Naming Convention pages have been built up over many years. They successfully deal with individual article naming situations in different contexts, often by means of specific exceptions to "use common name". The exceptions passage needs to remain to endorse this and make it clear. I don't believe ANY community consensus exists for its removal so far. The original passage documents what Wikipedia editors actually DO. This is what Wikipedia policy pages should be doing. The newly introduced passage does not document what Wikipedia and its editors actually do, but instead substitutes a doctrinaire insistence on "one-size-fits-all" naming. In other words it would be an attempt to centrally dictate policy from above, while ignoring the needs of specific groups within Wikipedia. Xandar 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This page contains several other principles than "use common name", and these other principle aren't "exceptions" - they are other objectives we try and attain simultaneously. Out of the names which satisfy all the objective, we should pick the most common one - but this has to be a name which is unambiguous, in verifiable use in reliable sources, etc. It's a final post-selection, not the only principle. Knepflerle (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • And there are other principles for other circumstances set out in the individual naming guidelines, which the removal of the exceptions clause would threaten. That is why the naming guidelines exist. If every possibility were covered in this policy, the other conventions would not need to exist. Xandar 11:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • No - the guidelines are explicit clear examples of the application of the set of principles here. This is useful to avoid rehashing discussions on how to apply the principles. Knepflerle (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Xandar's post is inaccurate as a summary of Wikipedia history and of the present dispute; he - and he only - has attempted to add new and general language providing not only exceptions to specific principles (as the old language here permitted exceptions to Common Names), but permitting guidelines to alter policy. This is unacceptable; we distinguish between policy and guidelines precisely to avoid this.
• His interpretation of the old language conflicts with Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence; and with the experience of those of us who used and discussed this page.
• The intent of the old text here was to provide for the situation when Common Name conflicts with some other good, such as Consistency in a class of articles, or Uniqueness. This is implicit in the actual guidelines, which do in fact discuss such problems. The phrasing recognizing them as separate principles did not yet exist; but the concept that naming discussions are often a conflict of goods is very old, and the old wording was a way of dealing with this. Arthur Rubin is correct that we should note explicitly that different principles, since they are different, can conflict. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This is the whole point. Some people are wanting to create conflicts where none exist. Remove the exceptions phrase, and people will be able to say "Guideline X" conflicts with "use common name", therefore guideline X should be derogated. The current situation is that guidelines provide specific exceptions to "use most common name", where they are needed, and this should continue. Xandar 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:RM exists because the desirable qualities of names conflict; and this page has been being refined long before Xandar began his crusade at a specific guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose the change. Specific naming conventions have been created by editors with expertise in specific areas. It is entirely appropriate to debate what these specific naming conventions should be, but it is ridiculous to throw them out entirely.-gadfium 22:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Nobody proposes to throw them out entirely; I've put in too much work on them to do so. This RfC is an objection to what they actually do: Apply this policy to specific fields, rather than ignoring it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Again, this is the danger. The change of wording will support the argument that the guidelines, in providing specific options "ignore" or contradict this policy, while the longstanding wording clearly shows that they are complementing the policy page. Xandar 11:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • No. This page documents the principles, and the conventions detail their application to certain contexts, and some wording should be developed to make this clear. Calling these applications "exceptions" does not make this clear. Knepflerle (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is fantastic! The old version of this page established binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. Those of you who, like me, support the self-determination of specific naming guidelines, should be delighted. Unfortunately Xandar appears to be inducing a moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a discussion unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 23:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly - this document should contain all the required consensus principles which are in practise. Knepflerle (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That could well be the defining answer. I think that consensus was to reflect basic principals and favor the general reader over the expert reader. As long as the changes recognize those points they are an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There is nothing in the new wording can or could change the status of Wikipedia policy, as Hesperian now claims, while he tries to personalise the issue. As can be seen from the discussions before the RfC, some of the proposed policy's promoters clearly DO see the new wording as an opening to challenge the individual naming-conventions and make them conform to "always use the most common name." Don't be misled. The new wording actually denies the self-determination of individual guidelines. The old version didn't mention "rules" either, so that argument is a red herring. The question to ask is why there is such insistence on removing the specific wording on exceptions if it is so unimportant? Xandar 11:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Again, you summarise this page's contents as "always use the most common name", when this is not true. And has never been true. And which there is no movement to make true. Over-simplifying the guidance here by taking one principle of several in complete isolation is the key error in this argument. Knepflerle (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - please focus on the context of the proposal rather than a single editor. This little bit of ganging up on an individual only serves to undermine your position and is not in character with Wikipedia policies. --^StormRider 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The complaint here is spurious; it is based, at best, on a misunderstanding of what this page has said, and what Wikipedia's naming practices (which this page should document) actually are. In the past, this page mentioned exceptions to one principle, to Common Name, when we meant to acknowledge that it conflicted with other principles, as it still does. That clarification constitutes no change of policy; it consistutes a clarification of policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I absolutely agree that this RFC is about the policy page, and not about any particular editor. Any comment about particular editors are out-of-place here.

  So, on topic, I agree that this page is for articulating principles, and that we need to make sure it doesn't look like law that lawyers think they can quote. Wikipedia's best practices are determined by consensus in specific cases, and then abstracted to policies. "Exceptions" (bad term to use) are examples of places where there is a consensus to do something differently in one area than elsewhere. This sort of agreement can be perfectly valid, so long as it incorporates community input, so it is not a local consensus of a few editors.

  I'm not a fan of any sentence that uses the language of "exceptions" and "precedence" or "trumping". I don't think we should be promoting the legalistic notion of "policy > guideline". Taking the legalistic language out of the policy is by no means a negation of the non-legalistic underlying idea. If someone tries to enforce what's written on this page as law — in either direction: saying that specific agreements can trump COMMONNAME or that COMMONNAME can trump specific agreements — then we need to patiently explain to them the principles set out at WP:WIARM. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Knepflerle

• I second the inaccuracy of Xandar's statement and talk-page notices. The conventions here have never said just "use the most common name", and no-one is proposing they should. They instead call for the use of the most common, recognizable name (if possible consistent with related articles) which is unambiguous and used in reliable English-language sources. This is not the same - the further principles are important, and exist for good reason.

• Generally, other naming conventions are not exceptions to this above rule - they are merely explicit applications of these principles to particular subject areas - eg the flora guidelines, where it was decided that scientific nomenclature was the only way to provide consistency and unambiguity simultaneously. Furthermore, articles that are not at the "most common name" are there because the most common name fails one of the other conditions listed - most often it is because this name is ambiguous, but it may also be rarely used in reliable sources, or confusingly inconsistent with other articles.

  Flora needs changing, it is clearly in breach of this policy. AFAICT it is the only guideline which does not start with the assumption of use Common names, National varieties of English, etc (the general principles), and then develop specific guidance from there. One reason for this is because many of the editors who supported the current guideline, do not seem to understand what "common name" means in the naming conventions. However in practice it only affects the name of a few articles, as many would be under their scientific name even if that specific guideline did not exist. --PBS (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  As I say above, I don't see a "breach" or inconsistency when the principles are taken as a whole set - taking the most common names can lead to ambiguity and (less importantly in my view) consistency, so we look through consistent schemes which provide unambiguous naming and pick the most common out of those - and this resulted in the current guidance. Knepflerle (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • • • As we see, the language being used here is of certain convention guidelines "breaching" this policy. That is the way this is going. That's why the long-standing wording is needed to make clear that such conventions document exceptions not breaches. My analysis is correct. And everyone can see from the wording changes above, exactly what has been proposed. Xandar 11:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • PBS has been claiming for years that WP:NC (flora) and various other guidelines are in breach, as testified by the whole of Archive 2, and most of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora), and most of WT:UCN, and numerous other talk pages. If you think PBS's employment of words like "breach" is anything new, then that just goes to show how utterly devoid of context you are. I've fought a long and bitter fight against the likes of PBS, for recognition of the rights of specific naming guidelines to whatever is the sensible thing in their particular field, without having to worry about being in "breach" of a general convention full of rules. Finally, we make some progress, and full credit to PBS for unbending enough to allow this to happen. And now you want to overturn it because it doesn't go far enough? Because it doesn't give you a cast-iron guarantee that your pet article will have the title you want it to? Because it hasn't stopped PBS from talking about "breaches" overnight? That's bullshit. Consensus decides what your pet article is named, and the wording of policy cannot change that. We've made massive progress here, and if you could see past your pet article, you might notice. Hesperian 11:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• However, one paragraph does not follow from these principles, and proposes something quite different: recent debate and editing have stemmed from attempts to clarify wording at WP:NCON#Dealing with self-identifying terms, which is being read by some editors as promoting the use of self-identifying names wherever possible. It is not clear that the wording actually refers to titles (as opposed to the text); it is not clear whether this is supported by consensus (being introduced there practically undiscussed three years ago, and now challenged by far more editors than ever supported it); it is not clear that this has been supported by actual practice on articles (the paragraph has been quoted in less than five discussions, and rejected notably at Kiev, for example); it is not clear that there is a need for any alternative to the current, well-known, well-scrutinised, well-applied and well-established advice on this page.

• Overall, we need to decide if there are any true exceptions to the advice given here (as opposed to clarifications, amplfications or applications), and indicate here accordingly. If there are true exceptions, and these are exceptions supported by consensus, actual practice and need, then these should not be "exceptions" at all - as a useful consensus practice they should be brought into this document here - for listing such practices is this document's raison d'être. Knepflerle (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. If there are exceptions to something said here, they should be stated here. If they can't be, the statement to which they are exceptions is itself too vague, too disputed, or insufficiently thought through to be policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • In other words the contention is that any exceptions not laid down in this page will be declared to be wrong and a contradiction. That is a huge reversal of current practice and directly contradicts Hesperian's claims above. Xandar 11:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • No, that is an incorrect summary. Principles we use are on this page. Examples of using this principles are in the conventions. Any new principles which warrant inclusion due to need, existing use and consensus will be included too. Knepflerle (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • (reply to Xandar's post above Knepflerle's) Anyone who "declares exceptions to be wrong and a contradiction" needs to be trout-slapped and pointed to IAR. Policy is not statutory law, too many people think it is, and we need to be opposing such a view, not capitulating to it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Xandar's question can really be "inaccurate": The original version is quoted verbatim, and so is the new version. The question is "Does this change have consensus?" Without reading anything into Xandar's motives (something several editors seem to be doing), I find no possibility for listing X and Y and inquiring about the level of support to be appropriately described as "inaccurate". "Does this change, which I believe will be (mis)interpreted as... have consensus?" or "Does this change, which means significantly more than what it says, have consensus?" could be misleading, but Xandar isn't doing this. Anybody can see from the diffs that these changes have been made; we need to know whether they reflect consensus.

If "common name" is meant to be essentially co-equal with each of the other conventions, then this page really must say that. Editors that are trying to implement the advice here should not have to read 100KB of backstory to figure out whether a page title should be "the most recognizable to general readers, even if it's seriously imprecise" or "the most precise, even if it's not recognizable". Editors should not have to guess whether the two-sentence WP:COMMONNAME is elevating the common names guideline above subject-matter guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is inaccurate because it ignores the profound contextual changes to the sentence being quoted. Hesperian 00:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

An "incomplete" description is not necessarily an "inaccurate" description. Otherwise, every single stub on Wikipedia would be violating WP:V, as they are "incomplete". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar describes our conventions as listing exceptions to "use common name". They don't, and therein lies the inaccuracy. This page has always included other considerations than commonality, and the conventions describe how the principles as a complete set have been applied. They do not list "exceptions" to just one principle taken in isolation. Knepflerle (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Again, following up on WhatamIdoing comments; FOCUS ON THE PROPOSAL. Xandar is not the proposal and never has been. He has quoted the language accurately. If you disagree and that you are proposing something different, bring to the body. You three seem to be the knuckle draggers in this little escapde, do you have anyone that is willing to focus on the proposal?--^StormRider 03:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, that's pure gold! "Focus on the proposal not the person... you knuckle-draggers." Hesperian 03:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • My comments are about the proposal and how Xandar summarised the current position - not about Xandar himself. However, your "knuckle-dragger" jibe has nothing to do with the proposal, and everything to do with personal insult. Anyone who has read my statement will easily see through such hypocritical and baseless slur. Knepflerle (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • There has been a lot of discussion of me, so far, and allegations that I am misrepresenting what the convention has always said. I think the correctness of my position is clear enough from the alternative wordings above. When analysed in common English, the meaning is quite clear. One policy endorses the varied exceptions to "use most common name" that appear in the community-based naming conventions. The other lays down a strict centralised rule. Xandar 11:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • No it doesn't. It articulates a principle: one of several. This is made clear in the context, which you are scrupulously avoiding. Hesperian 11:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - It is beyond question that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to enlighten, provide knowledge, and inform its readers. As such, it must first and foremost provide facts as reported by reliable sources. It is NOT a list of the mundane or a repetition of the ignorant or the common. It is simply too easy to provide article names that are accurate. More importantly, there is no clear manner in which to identify the name most commonly used in English. Searches on google and other search engines can be done, but they are hardly accurate or considered reliable sources. Self-identified or preferred names should be a criterion when evaluating a title. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the preferred title of the LDS Church, but the common or slang title is Mormon church. Should the common name prevail? Of course not. Myanmar is the preferred name of the country and has been for well over 20 years. It is the most common name as identified by a google search. It is the name of country as identified by the United Nations. Yet, the title is Burma on Wikipedia. This is achieved by common consent of Wikipedia in conflict with every naming convention...unless we want to count an gross misunderstanding of NPOV. We deal in facts and facts only. We should demand strict neutrality without any interest in the emotions or opinions of peoples; that is excellent article content only. We do not have a guideline where exceptions do not exist. Exceptions are a sign of flexibility and an understanding that Wikipedia is not run as a police state yet. --^StormRider 03:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  Burma is the common name, but your argument that it is not and that Myanmar is shows that you accept that principle of common name.--PBS (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Burma is not the common name and has not been for quite some time. The name that is used in national diplomacy, historical records, and by the people of Myanmar and the rest of the world most often is Myanmar. That is just the facts. Sorry, but your position is not correct. --^StormRider 01:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  This misunderstanding again springs largely from taking commonality in isolation from the other principles: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is the most common unambiguous name for the church - "Mormon Church" is not completely unambiguous; for that reason it is used here - just as it is commonly in other reliable sources of similar ilk. Our current policy supports this title, and it needs no exception to do so. Knepflerle (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  It's interesting that you point to the UN list as indicative of a country's self-identification, when a little lower down the list (under "T"!) lies "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - which is not how the country self-identifies. This compromise position under T is a consequence of the Greece's objection to their self-identification. Self-identification does not always lead automatically to neutral point-of-view identification, hence Matthew Nimetz' fifteen-year negotiations. However, whether we introduce self-identification on this page as a principle is a separate discussion; if we are going to use it, it shouldn't be hidden away as an "exception" on a separate page. Knepflerle (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  And you miss the rest of the reasoning. When making decisions it is best to take nothing in isolation. In reviewing all of the facts it is undeniable that the name of the nation-state is Myanmar and the vast majority of the world recognizes that except for the current Wikipedia article. --^StormRider 01:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  The British Government and the US Government use Burma, and in the UK nearly all the news media use Burma. This is not the place to debate the name of Burma. This is something that was debated throughly when the page was moved from Myanmar to Burma and the consesnsus was that Burma was the common name. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• This page is a policy, there should be no weasel words that delegate policy to guidelines. The wording before said exactly the same thing "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication," the exceptions were to the content of the naming conventions (page) not the guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In particular, this page is a Wikipedia policy, and is therefore not written for the benefit of rule-cavilers and pettifoggers who would base all decisions on whether a certain "rule" is a "policy" or a "guideline". Wikipedia policies are reflections of previously established consensus, which can always change. We take numerous principles into consideration, not any one in a vacuum. A policy page that pretends there is a clear system of trumps is simply inaccurate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Leave out the disputed sentence. As pointed out, the new structure of the page means it is no longer needed, since it is now perfectly clear that the common name principle is one of several. There is no more need for an "except where..." clause in that place than there is in any other section of this page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that only a limited number of alternatives to "use common name are set out". These do not match those documented in the guidelines, so the new wording would mean that all those guidelines suddenly conflict with policy. That is a huge centralised and centralising policy change, which could cause immense disruption across Wikipedia. It would take policy further from reality and actual practice by Wikipedians. PBS allegation that the wording only applied to certain of the naming conventions is a personal theory which does not have any basis in fact. Xandar 11:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely the opposite. We had an overbearing, centralised policy, and you didn't even notice. It said "Thou shalt obey these rules, unless an explicit exception is made." It has now been changed to "These are the principles of article naming. Find your own consensus on how to apply them." And you're complaining that the "unless an explicit exception is made" clause is gone. <facepalm/> Beggars belief. Hesperian 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Herperian, can you provide me with a direct quotation from this page that says this oft-asserted claim that editors now get to pick and choose with principles they implement (and that they didn't before)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see important differences between what Hesperian said, and "pick and choose which principles they implement". If you actually do some work in requested moves - like, go close a couple hundred move requests, and deal with the resulting criticisms - you'll find that most of our article titling is based on Wikipedians forming consensus on how to apply various principles in context. Policy pages reflecting such reality is not a bad thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Don't like the current version at all. We seem to have changed "General conventions" to "General principles" and more recently to "General conventions and guidelines". This section occupies the majority of this policy page, the rest being largely a contents list of specific conventions. Make up your minds guys. If this is a policy page, don't label half of it a "guideline" or expect anyone to take notice of the subtleties in the heading "principles"? I don't buy Hesperian's "these are only principles" argument. They aren't principles anyway: "Use common names" is a demand, not a principle. The closest we have to "principles" is the overview section. And get rid if this "greatest number of English speakers" nonsense. That's never been policy. Do you really want paracetamol to be branded "Tylenol"? Or US spelling to win 100% of the time? And how could anyone hope to establish what is "the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English"? And what's a "verifiable reliable source" anyway -- is it one where I cite a reliable source that says I'm using a reliable source? And WTF does "optimized for readers over editors" mean? We can, and should, do better than this nonsense. It needs to be made much clearer that "choose the common name" is a generally useful rule but that there are exceptions. Colin°^Talk 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The "overview" section - now the lead it seems - certainly does articulate principles, not demands, and that seems to me to be the right approach. As for the "greatest number of English speakers nonsense," have you actually participated in many titling disputes? After years of completing thousands of requested moves, I can testify that the idea behind COMMONNAME is the most often cited principle in those arguments; the one that carries the day most frequently. The Paracetamol/Tylenol example that you mention falls under the long-standing, broadly-supported "don't muck around with national varieties"-ceasefire.

    You're right that "verifiable reliable source" is a crime against the English language. I thought we killed that last week sometime, but it seems to have reappeared. That's something that's actually easier to fix than to complain about; I can only assume you've done so.

    As for "optimized for readers over editors", that's an even older principle that I remember reading in our policies back in '03. It means titling articles so that readers can find what they want, and aren't confused when they get there. Optimizing for editors would mean giving articles whatever title we're most likely to put double square brackets around. That whole concept is a bit moot however, because of redirects, as has been remarked recently on this talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    • I've made what I think are mostly minor edits in response to the above comment by User:Colin. I hope I've addressed the - IMO valid - issues that he brought up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I have participated in some titling disputes, though clearly not as many as you. I agree that COMMONNAME is the most often cited but it had not (as far as I was aware) ever been written as the simple formula "in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". The fact that this formula is useless is made clear by the complete contradiction that has now been added "this is not understood as a simple "majority rules" principle". Previously, "it is the common name in my country / in the country of the article-subject / etc" could be argued but now they would be simply shot down by a Google search results page. The formula also contradicts the policy on national languge varieties, as you point out, but there is no need for it to do so. If a name is "common" then it meets this aspect of policy. Further refinement over which is the best name are probably not best solved by ranking to find the name with the most occurrences in reliable sources (why should its occurrence in unreliable sources such as novels or tabloids not be relevant to many subjects?) Policy should be tight but not too tight -- so just leave it as "common" and don't try to refine that into "greatest number of English speakers" or "most Google hits" or whatever.
      • The point of my compaint about "optimized for readers over editors" is that it doesn't explain what it means. This is a page that must be readable by newbies trying to work out how to name an article. They will, frankly, not have a clue. Secondly, it has no relevance to "common name" -- it is an independent naming principle. Colin°^Talk 07:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"greatest number of English speakers" has been policy for many many years. I think the reasons for using reliable sources is explained in the section #Reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. The "greatest number" or "majority of" wording was not previously part of WP:COMMONNAME and was phrased as "Generally, article naming should prefer..." In other words, it was a reasonable starting point, not a formula for settling disputes. It is currently part of the most-cited section in this policy and written as an absolute requirement "Name articles in accordance with ..." This is a significant change in policy that intoduces unnecessary contraditions with other rules on this page and with guidelines linked to from this page. There is no need for it. The only thing policy needs to say is that we have a strong preference for commonly-used names. Leave the detail of how to determine what is "common" to the guideline. Colin°^Talk 10:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Per one of the most fundamental and broadly supported principles embodied in IAR: it's okay if newbies don't have a clue. They're not required to. I don't think newbies should read policy pages; they cause cancer. We oldies are already jaded, and our leathery skins can take the harsh artificial lights here.

As for "name articles in accordance with", I tried to reword most of those to "articles are generally named in accordance with". I strongly disagree with writing the policies prescriptively. People are already too inclined to take them that way, and IAR is very, very, very, very important. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS - I deny that there is consensus for wording COMMONNAME as a commandment. You've repeated a lot that "rules are rules" in various formulations, but IAR and WIARM are strongly supported by a consensus of many more editors than you. I'd like to see that others - a consensus of others - agree that prescriptive language is appropriate there. What I'm getting from this discussion, from this RFC, is that people want principles, not hard-and-fast regulations. Who else supports your pet version? -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

see the section #Name of articles below. --PBS (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Headed there now... -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

GT, I agree with you in that descriptive is more appropriate for Wikipedia. In practice, rules are flexible weather we want them that way or not. Articles are written by consensus first then policies and guidelines come second. I agree that policies usually have wide support of the community, but nothing that Wikipedia does is set in concrete and never has been. Its very nature is fluid. --^StormRider 20:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Use the common name, like Burma and Joshua tree. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not at all clear to me that "Burma" is the common name for that nation. When I was in school, we learned it as Myanmar, and that's how I see it on maps. I think that most people older than I remember it as Burma, and most people younger than I either haven't heard of it, or know it as Myanmar. I'm 32. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  In the UK Burma is overwhelmingly the common name. See for example this article published only 5 days ago and this link "GCSE Geography B Teachers' Guide 7" (page 8) which indicates that Burma is used by school geography teachers preparing children for public exams. This is not the place to debate the name of a specific age. This was done at the time that Myanmar was moved to Burma. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Burma is not the common name and has not been quite some time. The common name is Myanmar. Most on-line dictionaries title their article "Myanmar", then begin by stating Myanmar, or Burma, or officially... Some just use Myanmar. There is an obvious POV that because the government was obtained by military coup that it is somehow unfit to be recognized. The name Burma for the article has been maintained by consensus, though it is hardly the proper title; it is one of those exceptions to policies and guidelines. Regardless, it is a poor example to use for common name. --^StormRider 09:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh heck, I didn't mean to open that can.

The only thing clear to me about that dispute is that it's not 100% clear and obvious which name is more common. I've seen quite good cases made for both sides, and that's why the dispute has ranged so long and so bitterly. The biggest impediment to productive dialogue is denying that there are good points to be made on the other side, or to claim that it's somehow clear or obvious.

To generalize back to what this page is about, Burma/Myanmar is an excellent example of a disputed title that lies in a gray area and where we have to take all of our naming principles into consideration and let consensus work itself out. In this particular case, I don't see that happening anytime soon, so the name will remain in dispute. Fact of life. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Diff

There seems to be a lot of misinformation being pushed here. Let's get this straightened out. Here is the diff.[5] My take on this is that the overriding principle "use the most common name" has been joined by four other principles of equal (or rather, unspecified) standing. With respect to the wording of the common names section, it has been changed from

"Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, articles should be named in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name primarily by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."

to

"A good title will name the article with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize – usually the most commonly used name verifiably used in reliable sources in English. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."

This is a general softening of the language, reflecting the fact that this is one of several principles to be taken into consideration, not a rule to be wielded against non-compliant conventions. It is important to see the removal of the "exceptions" clause in this broader context. Specifically, it is important to understand that reinserting it will again appear to elevate "use the most common name" to the status of a "rule" that cannot be broken unless an explicit exception is made; this would mean less freedom for specific conventions, not more.

But don't take my word for it. And certainly don't take Xandar's word for it. Look at the diff for yourself. Here it is again: [[6].

Hesperian 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please pause before you make these sorts of hysteric claims, Hesperian. The RFC was posted on 13th September. On 15th September TWO DAYS after the RFC began, someone changed the wording of the affected section on the page. So don't go accusing ME of dishonesty. Check your facts first. And we're discussing the principle here of removing direct reference to the specific exceptions-derogations provided by the specific naming conventions. Xandar 11:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in playing the dishonest game of discussing half a sentence excised entirely from its context. Hesperian 12:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar and Hesperian, hello! Nothing is gained by using inflammatory language such as "misinformation being pushed", "don't take Xandar's word for it", "hysteric claims" and "dishonest game". This does neither of you any credit, and makes you both come across as beneath the dignity of this project. Can it, both of you.

Xandar is right that we're discussing naming principles, and not each other. Hesperian - pull your socks up. Leave all ad hominem remarks back at the schoolyard. (Xandar, you see? I'm an equal opportunity bastard when it comes to this stuff.)

So, can you two stay in the lines, or not? We'd all rather get work done, so race each other to be the first to rise to the occasion. That means no more hitting back. Turn the other cheek, and talk like professionals who can stay on topic. Else, blocks will fly soon. Yes, this counts as a warning to you both. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• (I don't know where to put my comment anymore, they are now in a number of different sections). Oppose, this rules out the possibility to standardize information, and will result in edit-warring throughout Wikipedia. "Convention: A good title will name the article with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize – usually the most commonly used name verifiably used in reliable sources in English. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." is simply an invitation to start edit warring about every name with a ph/f, ou/o s/z or whatever difference ENGVAR difference (hey, that is what is happening now, where local guidelines do say why one has preference over the other, but at least now we can say 'this is the convention, and until you convince us that the name is the wrong one, we keep that one'); (by the way, make it 'readers of the English language Wikipedia', which is something different). The problem is easy if it is a common word, as then probably the US English title will be used, but where there is some official choice of name, that line is blurring, as both will be used more equally. Can someone show me a significant preference of 'color' over 'colour' (forget the Google test already for that). Regarding varieties of English spelling: this is going to violate WP:RETAIN, what if the article is written in UK English, then we should retain the article text in UK English, but now use the commonname for the title. Another point: there will be cases where there will be 20-30 different local names for certain brands of products, a lot of them used to a significant extend. This wording would overrule now the use of the (sometimes generally unknown) name which has been assigned by a world leading organisation that is recognised as the standard for the naming of that type of products (I am thinking about e.g. the article names of the >4000 drugs we have here; based on the current wording, a COI editor could start an edit war about a drug where they want to have it assigned to their brand name, and if that name is used significantly, that type of advertising would stick). Although this change is meant in a good way, I am sure it will result in a mayhem of edit/move wars,

  However, an easy solution may be: add to the WP:COMMONNAME part that exceptions lined out in [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Specific conventions and other guidelines|]] should be followed (a part that is now removed, and which is now invisible to the people). But that gets close to what the original text was, and what seems to be disputed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The old version said "use the most common name". That was the rule. The only rule. Which meant the convention also had to make exceptions, so that you could apply your eminently sensible naming convention to those >4000 drugs. This version demotes "use the most common name" to one of several principles, another of which is consistency, which states "Similar articles are generally given similar titles." This is the principle under which you guys have been using the standard names of those >4000 drugs, and here it is, articulated for the first time! Your drug articles are no longer an exception to the general rule. They are perfectly acceptable mainstream names now. It is beyond me how you can possibly see that as a negative. See also the section below, #Endorsed names, which also bears on this. Hesperian 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Consistency" as it is currently word is a bad idea. "Usually common name" is the way forward or it make a mockery of "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking consistency out would make a mockery of the consensus on these drug articles, along with numerous other consensuses. Far better to make a mockery of nineteen words in a policy, than to make a mockery of community consensus. Hesperian 11:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There is still a section called Use Common name," and it still sets out what most editors will see as a rule - even some of the editors posting here who have pushed for the removal of the "exceptions" passage. We can see that sort of outlook in this discussion. The "old" version never said "rule" either. And the limited set of "principles" set down exclude some very important naming considerations used by different Wikipedia editors and projects. Xandar 12:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. You asked for comment at WP:GEOG and no doubt elsewhere, so here's mine. This discussion is largely incomprehensible - or more accurately, it assumes a corpus of knowledge that the average editor will simply not have. It is hardly alone as an RFC in having this deficiency but I don't think that is an excuse. Few people will have the time to trawl through all of the above and the associated archives and background. Please provide a simple summary identifying :

the problem you are trying to solve.

the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed solutions.

the above should include specific examples - i.e. which article names might change.

No doubt if I had the time I could figure all this out for myself, but I can't help feeling that if you could more clearly identify what it is you are trying to achieve, the answer might become a lot more obvious to all concerned. Well, you did ask. Ben MacDui 14:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I added a few words to that section and can see no reason to add anything further to it. It provides now for both recognisable names and exceptions. Perhaps there is more specific that should be there but as far as I can see anything more specific than that may be categorised for true clarity? ~ R.T.G 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Table of changes

I looks like more changes have been made to the page over the last week than have been made over the last six months. These changes were made by a small number of editors and I find it difficult to believe that all of them carry consensus.

A table of the changes shown by the diff of changes supplied by Hesperian is below:

	Text	Status	Link to Consensus
A.	"Readers should not have to read into the article to find which of several meanings of the title is the actual subject, but there is no virtue in excess."	Added	WP:Where?
B.	"Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication..."	Removed	WP:Where?
C.	"Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark."	Added	WP:Where?
D.	"...the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles."	Removed	WP:Where?
E.	"...the choice of title is not influenced by disputes about whether a name is "right" in a moral sense. Note also that the use of one name as an article title does not preclude the use of alternative names in appropriate contexts in the text of articles."	Added	WP:Where?
F.	"...the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name..."	Removed	WP:Where?
G.	"...or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles."	Removed	WP:Where?
H.	"Note also that the use of one name as an article title does not preclude the use of alternative names in appropriate contexts in the text of articles."	Added	WP:Where?
I.	"Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles."	Removed	WP:Where?
J.	"When there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail."	Removed	WP:Where?
K.	"Where articles have descriptive names, they are neutrally worded."	Formerly "must be"	WP:Where?
L.	"Another exception are printable characters in redirect pages."	Removed	WP:Where?
M.	"Occasionally, these subsidiary pages—if they contain content that is only relevant as an elaboration of a shorter paragraph on the main page—can have more complex page names..."	Removed	WP:Where?
N.	"The present convention for articles providing more detail on a given topic is using the {{Main|<toppage>}} and {{Details|<subpage>}} templates, in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, and the guidance on how to avoid POV content forks. Such templates are placed under a section header, each instance of these templates providing a link to a subpage."	Removed	WP:Where?
O.	Criteria: Easy to find, Precise, Concise, Consistent, Unique	Added	WP:Where?

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you go. The policy is going through some changes to better reflect actual practice. Sounds just about right. I predict it'll settle down again soon. These things often come in waves. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does change and it's a beautiful thing when it does. This however is a policy page. Changes to it should be sure to reflect consensus. I find it difficult to believe that so few editors could have their fingers so close to the pulse of Wiki consensus that they would have no need to discuss making so many changes to such an important document.

I've lettered the changes above for ease of reference. Some choice selections:

A: This contradicts WP:DAB regarding articles that form a primary topic, effectively ruling out primary topics across the encyclopedia.

B: This removes long-held conventions regarding specific topic areas. Were those communities involved in the decision to change this policy? Were they even informed in any way?

I: That's been here for three years. Where is the consensus to remove it?

J: That's been here for donkey's years! Again, where is the consensus to remove it?

K: GUBU

It's great to see consensus change - but please don't change the content of this page until consensus does first. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that policy pages have to be so static. It's not healthy to consider a policy page "such an important document". This isn't scripture, and editors are generally better off not reading policy pages. They're just our attempts to describe policy. No human can change policy by editing this page. We can just make it more or less accurate. Specific changes that you disagree with, please do discuss. The idea that editors "have no need to discuss" seems to ignore the extremely active discussion that's been attending the editing. You'll find that the editors making the edits are quite open to talking, right here, about them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Plicy pages do not have to be static, but changes should reflect REAL changes and consensus among active editors across the community - not just what a group of four or five editors lurking on the page happen to think. I don't believe the wider community itself has changed with regard to items like B, I and J, or that the current changes to these on the policy page have consensus among editors. Xandar 00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And that's why we're on this page discussing. Discussing the actual issues, in a calm and professional manner, is 3000% more effective than bemoaning the fact that the page is being edited. Just get more people to the discussion. That's how you fix the problem you're concerned about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I start of with a link to Consensus can change and I get a reply stating that, "I disagree that policy pages have to be so static." We're really in the mood for listening, aren't we gentlemen?

"It's not healthy to consider a policy page 'such an important document'. ... editors are generally better off not reading policy pages." Take it to the Village pump. Right now, policy is policy. We are not here to discuss any change to that and neither is it the place.

Now, discussion take times. And there are 14 changes that need discussing. Meanwhile there are 200-odd people a day looking at this page to find out what policy is regarding, say, whether other naming conventions form exceptions to the policy on naming conventions. The WP:BRD route seems most logical here.

Thank you for your bold efforts. We'll now revert it and discuss the merits of each part individually. OK? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor. I actually listened quite well to what you said, and then failed to express myself very clearly. In particular, "static" was a poor word choice. I'll thank you not to accuse me of "not listening" when it's entirely possible that I simply didn't reply clearly. I meant that it's fine for policy pages to be edited actively, as long as the vigorous editing is accompanied by thorough discussion. I think we're trying to do that, and I do genuinely appreciate your efforts to be sure we don't miss anything. I think those efforts would be well-directed by picking one of your 14 points, and starting a section on it instead of yakking about how I didn't listen.

As for "policy is policy", WP:IAR is policy. Wikipedia is fundamentally not a rules-based system. This is the place to discuss that if we're going to be alleging that this policy embodies some kind of hard-and-fast rules that have to be edited with the utmost of care. Contempt for rules is a healthy approach to Wikipedia, and I don't need the Village Pump to tell me that.

Finally, as for BRD, you've missed the first 11 stops on that train. Many bold edits have been reverted and discussed. Even better than BRD is 0RR. Don't go backwards when we can instead tack, like a boat sailing into the wind. That's already going on, and I look forward to your active participation below, where the discussion that you're requesting has been going on for days.

Please note that we are in almost total agreement here, except that I think time spent asking people to stop making bold edits is better spent discussing those edits. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor, I like that. Never heard of it before. I replied to what I saw on screen, which seem coherent except that you did not seem to be listening. Something common when editors are in dispute, which it seems you are. It's hardly "malice" on your part for you to fail to listen.

We need to be careful when editing policy pages. There's a notice on top of policy pages advising editors of this. It's in plain English, maybe you missed it. Or had a Hanlon lapse? People look to policy pages to find out "what is policy". They do not look to policy pages to find out "what is proposed policy" or "what is under discussion for policy". They can click on the Talk tab to find that out. What appears on the page should be consensus (or decree of Jimbo) - not what I, you or anyone else wants to be policy or are offering up for discussion.

"As for 'policy is policy', WP:IAR is policy." Yawn.

"Contempt for rules is a healthy approach to Wikipedia, and I don't need the Village Pump to tell me that." Take that to WP:BIO and see how far it gets you. But, have contempt for the rules. If the rules say X then you do Y regardless, you crazy diamond! But please don't edit policy pages to state Y. Otherwise how will other's know of your wacky contempt for the rules?

"Don't go backwards when we can instead tack, like a boat sailing into the wind." A plain revert at this stage is counter productive, I wouldn't support doing that (there are scores of helpful intermediate edits that should stay). What I propose is that the most controversial edits be taken out or put back in (by hand) then we can discuss the proposed changes in turn, here, on this talk page - as they should have been discussed to begin with. I don't see them being discussed below. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What I can't figure out is why you're still talking to me, when you could be spending that energy discussing these edits that you object to. Pick one, and start a section below. I'll see you there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

... because I was at work and only had time to make quick posts. I've restored consensus on some of the more obvious elements. I also noticed new "criteria" had beene added. I've removed those since they would require consensus at least and, as noted in the text itself, were contradictory and so not very helpful as "criteria" at all.

The table above suffices as a discussion point. If you had difficulty figuring out why I was still talking to you it was because I was wondering when you were going to begin discussing the changes in the table above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. How very efficient. Why not wait for the person who's not bothered by the changes to start discussing them. How's that working out for you? I notice you're still talking to me, and I still don't care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OK then. Thanks for your input. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Now you're seeing it. Next time someone makes a change you don't think has consensus, discuss it and not the issue of changes w/out consensus in the abstract. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hence the table of changes. Lettered A-O. Posted here for discussion. Which you haven't commented on. Are you going to discuss these changes or do you intend to proffer more wise words about sails boats tacking in the wind? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you still talking to me? I've indicated quite clearly that I don't care about the changes in your table. I'm happy either way, because I don't believe that policy is made of words on a page. If you reply to me, I can only conclude that you enjoy this. Talk. To. Someone. Who. Cares. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

? - LOL - Then stop posting in this section. This section is for discussing the table of changes. If you do not want to discuss the table of changes, or if you don't care about it, just stop posting here. Understand how it works? No-one is forcing you to post here. And no-one will hold it against you if you simply stop posting here. Get it?

Now, on the count of three, let's both step away from our keyboards. OK? Ready? Here we go ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It makes me very angry to think that I have wasted a month in deep and thorough discussion about this, only to have someone come in late and revert it all on the false premise that the changes were made "without discussion". At this point, the only change that has been made without discussion is the wholesale revert. Hesperian 23:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is in fact moderately useful; but the claim that none of this has been discussed is flat false. All of the additions have been discussed at length; that's what this month of talk page is.

The removals chiefly fall into three classes:

• Redundancy - for example, D, F, G and I are the same point, and two of them are probably redundant.
• Inadvertence - all four of them were removed in the process of streamlining. This was excessive - and I have, per the discussion with Hesperian below, restored the point twice.
• Stuff that is ungrammatical, badly phrased, or does not rise to the level of policy. L falls under all three of these.

If Rannpháirtí anaithnid wishes to discuss any of these, and make a case against any of these changes, he is free to do so - but he has not yet done so. Reversion without discussion - solely on the basis that it was consensus once - is contrary to policy.

Alternatively, and preferably, if he wishes to propose new wording, making some point the present text does not make, that may win support which the old text did not have. If everybody agreed with all of these, they would never have been changed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, PMA. The consensus and accurate version of policy remains the version that existed prior to the extensive changes made by a small group of editors on this page. THAT IS NOT HOW SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO WP POLICY ARE MADE. WP:CONLIMITED Any substantial change to policy pages must have wide community consensus before it is accepted. Simply edit-warring your preferred version on to the page PMA, does not make it "policy" or Consensus. And if Hesperian is angry that his position gets reverted, then he should make non-agreed changes on a sandbox version, rather than on the policy page. Xandar 00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Boldface does not make it so.

There is no evidence that the old version is consensus - certainly a good many editors have thought it could be improved and said so here. Three editors and a campaign of canvassing are not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Some of the removed elements had been part of this policy for years (two items in particuar are donkey's years old). Consensus not only can, but does change. When it does, the change can be evidienced. I have added a column to the table whereby the place where the new consensus was agreed to can be linked. (I still don't see it, linking to it will proove your point.)

As you say, Pmanderson, D, F, G and I are all basically the same point so condensing them into one phrase it no great problem. I listed all major revision between the diffs provided. There were 15 in all. Some big, some small. D, F, G and I are among the small ones (and hence I didn't restore the old version for them). It's the big ones that are the problem. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Query recent edits

"Our readers are mostly not specialists; article names should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."

I don't like "our" in a formal register such as this; actually, the first clause could go completely. Just what the second clause means in practice is hard to know, even if we use this argument on the talk page from time to time WRT each other. Third clause: so a skin-condition article has to be called "Red rash", does it? Tony (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Red rash" would be ever-so-slightly ambiguous, given a quick flick through the average dermatology textbook ;) Knepflerle (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Since these are distinct criteria, they can conflict with one another; in such cases, the questions about article names are resolved by discussion towards building consensus, always with these principles in mind."

Presumably they could conflict even if they weren't distinct; the logic ("Since") doesn't work. After the semicolon, it doesn't seem to add anything that WP doesn't already know. Tony (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the first clause is logically flawed and largely redundant, but I think the second phrase is important, at least during the period of transition from rules-based wording to principles-based wording. How about "Conflicts between these criteria are resolved by discussion towards building consensus"? Hesperian 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect, but don't know, that the writers of this phrase assumed that most Wikipedia editors are "experts", and that readers are generally undereducated people with limited vocabularies. Such an assumption is wildly inaccurate, as many subject-matter experts read Wikipedia without editing it, and most of our best editors regularly work in areas outside their expertise, especially copyeditors and wikignomes.

In terms of a page title that might be optimized for editors rather than readers, perhaps they meant to deprecate using names that were very short (and thus easier for the editor to type) but essentially uninformative (e.g., IBM instead of International Business Machines -- except, of course, that IBM is the company's current formal name). Beyond that, I can't imagine any circumstance in which a name would be efficient ("optimized") for an editor but not for a reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)\

The assertion that our article titles are optimized for readers and not for editors, lay readers and not for specialists has always been in this policy, and usually in the lead. It makes two distinct assertions: that editors should not make editing easy for themselves when this inconveniences readers; and that our readers should not be assumed to be specialists. Specialists have other sources - usually reliable and not subject to vandalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This sentence poorly articulates that once we have picked the most common title from all unambiguous titles in verifiable use which are reasonably consistent with our other articles, then there is no need for any spurious "extra" precision for its own sake. Moving "Germany" to "Federal Republic of Germany" or "gypsum" to "calcium sulfate dihydrate" gains us nothing in terms of reducing ambiguity, but probably reduces ease-of-accessibility in some sense. If a new wording could better illustrate this spirit, it would be an improvement. Knepflerle (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are good examples of "specialist" rather than "general audience" examples, but my concern is with the apparently meaningless "readers over editors" line. It seems entirely unnecessary to me. Perhaps someone that thinks it is valuable can provide an example of a title that favors a non-specialist editor over a non-specialist reader -- and that is honestly likely to be a subject of dispute (i.e., an issue for which having a written standard would be helpful, rather than simple bloviation and WP:CREEP). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Readers over editors" is a very old bit of language that I agree is a bit mysterious. I think it meant that we don't manufacture standards solely to make our work of adding links easier. I don't oppose the taking out and shooting of that phrase, unless someone can make it make more sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact we do manufacture standards solely to make our work of adding links easier. Whether we should is another matter; but we do. One has only to look at the various geographic locality conventions that advocate predisambiguation e.g. Meekatharra, Western Australia not Meekatharra. Therefore I agree: take it out the back and shoot it. Hesperian 07:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --PBS (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Undone. The example provided by Hesperian is a good one. The article should have the title Meekatharra because that is the common name of the place and there is no need for disambiguation. If, for some technical editing reason, we need the link Meekatharra, Western Australia too, this may be provided as a redirect. For another example, consider the common usage Xxxxxx (disambiguation). This is written in full, rather than being abbreviated as Xxxxxx (dab) per our common internal usage. This may be less convenient for editors who have to type this long form, but it is clearer for readers and so we prefer it. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable seeing decisions about how to name localities in Australia made with some input from those who work on those articles, than to see it made in the abstract on this page. If there's a consensus to include the province in Australia town names, then I'd like to at least include in the discussion those who arrived at said consensus. If it turns out to be ill-founded, that's one thing; if it turns out that consistency has been chosen for reasons that the community buys, then that's another thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Warden has given an lucid reasons for keeping the phrase "readers over editors" in the sentence, whether or not the specific example of Australia is valid. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And in general, we as editors tend to see our own convenience more readily than the convenience of readers whom we should be serving. We may not fall into that temptation very often in any given field (although the steady push to express mathematical articles at the highest possible level of abstraction is a recurrent instance), much less in titling pages; the only example I could give would be controversial. Nevertheless, these four words are a useful reminder not to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm down w/ that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there some policy of more general scope where this principle is expressed? There ought to be - it doesn't apply just to naming articles. --Kotniski (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's in one of the five pillars; but I tend to quote this page when necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

From the above, it sounds like this phrase should be understood as favoring "normal English speakers over jargon-imbued so-called 'editors' whose primary language is no longer English, but Wikipedia-ese." I'm not convinced that "titles should be intelligible to normal English speakers" requires restatement here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic names)#Australia says "All Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is.". This is a convention that I am on the record as disagreeing with. I have tried twice to overturn it, and both times failed dismally. I failed because the convention has strong consensus support amongst editors of Australian geography articles, and is universally applied there. It is beyond dispute that the decision to predisambiguate in this case is an optimisation aimed at editors over readers. Colonel Warden and I agree that this is silly; apparently everyone in this discussion does. But I know for a fact that many Australian editors think the convention is great. Therefore, though I wholeheartedly agree with the phrase "should be optimized for readers over editors", I doubt if it represents consensus. Hesperian 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually consistency has advantages for readers too; if it did not, the Australisn editors would be debunked by the rest of us, who are readers in Auxtralisn matters. If Meekatharra, Western Australia were not disambiguated, and Austin, Western Australia were, any reader looking at the list in Category:Towns in Western Australia would be entitled to wonder whether there was some deep significance to the difference, when there is none.

Whether this advantage outweighs Conciseness is an issue of balance, on which you and the Colonel disagree with other editors. With luck, this phrasing may permit you two to put a more persuasive case to the rest of them, focusing (as both sides should) on the advantage to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Name of articles

From "Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" to "Articles are generally named in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" Oh so some articles can be named in such a way that it is obscure to most English English speakers. The older wording is clearer. -- PBS (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This addition: "This is not understood as a simple "majority rules" principle; for example, consensus does not favor the systematic use of American over British English." is not needed it is covered in WP:NC#National varieties of English. It just complicates a clear and concise paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the aim of keeping this clear and simple if possible. We don't have to repeat every point in evey paragraph.--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This would be a principle; at some point we should recognize that we can't always comply with that principle and maintain Uniqueness (there are how many towns most easily recognized as Springfield?). But in stating the principle, we need not weasel. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

However, we could at some point state the principle that WP:NC#National varieties of English instantiates - a combination of civility among editors and inclusiveness for readers; it's a good thing and consensus policy - but it doesn't follow from the six principles we have now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... that could get misused by those who would have us avoid doing anything that might offend anybody...--Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with clear and simple as well. However, I strongly disagree with prescriptive over descriptive wording, and I do think it's important to qualify that COMMONNAME does not mean majority rules. I don't care about citing ENGVAR as a particular example; it's just what came to my mind.

PBS, was it everything about my edit you disagreed with, or just parts? There were several changes, and it's not clear to me which ones bother you. Do you think the imperative "Name articles in accordance with..." language is good. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of input on this page that such a commandment is contrary to policy and practice.

What do people think about this point? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But Common Name does mean the majority (of reliable sources) rule; when the majority do not rule, that is because we are no longer (in the given case) following Common Name but some other principle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know PBS's views, but I dislike both generally and the passive voice. The reason for generally would be to explicitly acknowledge that values conflict, which we have already done. How about "Good titles name articles in acoordance..."? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not married to any particular wording, but I will probably continue to insist that imperative "do this, don't do that" is worse than descriptive "this is what we do, check it out". I remember, from when I read through some naming conventions back in '03, descriptions of what was done, followed by examples of articles named that way, and often with examples of exceptions as well. It was succinct, clear, concrete, descriptive, and almost certainly idealized in my memory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus see above my major objection is "generally" -- PBS (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. There is a difference in meaning between the sentence either side of the "mdash;" The first makes the stateme nt "Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" This is a very old part of this page and does not say use common names to name an article. The second part of the sentence says "usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English." which is also accurate. Is anyone taking part in this conversation arguing that we should ever name an article by a name which the greatest number of English speakers would not most easily recognize? The only time I can think that we do that is to do with national varieties of English, and that is explained in another section. Is there anyone who disagrees that usually it is the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources? Given this difference in meaning between the two halves of the sentences, I see nothing wrong with "usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English"

I see no advantage in the wording "A good title will name the article [with] what" over "Name articles in accordance with what" as I think that the latter and long standing text is clearer. -- PBS (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS, can you suggest a wording that is more descriptive than prescriptive, and which works for you? I don't like going back to "Name articles in accordance with..." just because specific descriptive phrasings aren't quite musical. Can't we work with this notion of describing best practice?

My issue with "verifiable reliable sources" is that the sources are not "verifiable". Facts are verifiable IN reliable sources. My sense of semantics revolts at "verifiable reliable sources", and someone above in the RFC complained about it as well. It's just not good English. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize isn't a statement; it's a command. I don't mind this particularly myself, but it does contribute to the view that this is a set of rules, not of principles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize is ambiguous because it is so easily debatable. It appears to be an invitation for conflict with both sides providing references, but none of them identify the greatest number..easily recognize; only that the term is recognizable or is used. This is one of the reasons that reliable sources be used i.e. what does the expert/reliable source state. I am not sure I can identify a downside to have references support the name. Articles do not get lost, readers will always find their topic of interest. IF Wikipedia does nothing else, let it be a source of accurate knowledge and not a collection of opinion pieces designed by the lowest common denominator. --^StormRider 20:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that's what was a stake here. Perhaps I should be shouting more? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This policy seems now to be written on cases where the choice is between two names (do we use 'colour' or 'color'). Do we realise that there are cases where there are way more than two (drug names?), all used in different parts of the world, and where 'smaller' countries may have actually the largest number of English reading people using that name due to monopoly positions or local regulations, while the large majority of the world will not even recognise such a name? Finding majority is then simply impossible, leads to names no-one might recognise, or leads to a significant number of pages where brandnames of one major company are used. I suggest to follow the local guidelines for the naming. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. At present the convention says "Since these are distinct criteria, they can conflict with one another; in such cases, the questions about article names are resolved by discussion towards building consensus, always with these principles in mind." The whole point of specific (i.e. "local") guidelines is that they represent established consensus on a specific issue or within a given field. The problem with the above quote is we are forgetting that consensus may already exist. More often than not the solution is to check the specific guideline to find out what consensus is, and then follow it. There is only a need to engage in discussion if there is no consensus on some point (always remembering that consensus can change). How shall we proceed? Hesperian 06:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

How is this for a start, Dirk?[7] Hesperian 07:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a link to the things below. It already gets better. The drugs were an example I know about, to a lesser extend it also goes for the almost 6000 chemical compounds (something as simple as Methane comes according to the Chemical Abstracts Service already to 11 (one duplicate), what the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry says I don't know). I am sure that similar will be available for trees, materials, &c. I see your point, Hesperian, will re-read the part above as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Precise

I still have trouble with the precise paragraph:

Precise. Good article titles should indicate the subject and scope of the article; readers should not have to read into the article to find which of several meanings of the title is the actual subject. The scope of articles does change; when it does, and the old title does not still fit, rename it.

The related idea has always been "be precise when necessary". There was never any need for precision in WP naming except to resolve conflicts with other uses. The above implies much more than that, and for which there is very little precedence in actual article naming, AFAIK, much less any history in written policy or guidelines for it. Including the principle of precision - seeking precision beyond merely resolving conflict with other actual uses - sets up for needless conflicts. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not much more, but what more there is is to the benefit of the encyclopedia: Great Persecution probably has a primary meaning of the FA Diocletianic Persecution; but which is more helpful to the reader? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(to B2C's comment)...which is a long-winded way of saying that titles need to be precise enough to be unambiguous, but no more so. Knepflerle (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Precise enough to be unambiguous, but no more so"... yeah. Somebody write that down. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a little better, but even the first sentence has no basis: "Good article titles should indicate the subject and scope of the article". There simply is no precedence for that. Article titles indicate the name of the article topic, whether doing so indicates the subject and scope of the article is rarely if ever a factor. Then, if the name alone is not unambiguous, the title needs to be made more precise (usually with dab info in parenthesis) but in order to meet WP's unique technical requirement, not to indicate the subject and scope of the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Occasionally, such as when you have multiple articles in a tightly related area, then the titles must indicate the scope. For example, compare "Introduction to genetics" to the more technical "Genetics" article. For simpler subjects (e.g., Lion) the scope is 'everything', which does not need to be specified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, be only as precise as necessary to avoid collision with other uses. That applies to adding additional contextual information to the title. But the vast majority of titles do not indicate scope, and many do not clearly indicate the subject, but are still good. The statement that both must be indicated in order for a title to be "good" is not true at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A good example is where a name is the most common name of both a company and the product that it sells. e.g. Coca Cola. If we treat company and product together, then the single most common name of both is the best name for the article, because its dual use matches the dual scope. But if we treat them separately, then at least one of them needs a more precise name, so that the article scopes are distinguishable from their titles e.g. "The Coca Cola Company" for the company. So WhatamIdoing is right that we need to indicate the scope sometimes, but Born2cycle is right that the "sometimes" is in fact whenever the topic is butting up against another topic that it needs to be disambiguated from.

So I think Born2cycle's point is sustained here: article titles only indicate the scope to the extent necessary to remove collision with other topics.

However there is one point that I don't want to lose here: we provide the scope necessary to remove collisions with other notable topics, irrespective of whether or not those other notable topics have articles. So the company article should be named The Coca Cola Company even if no-one had gotten around to writing an article about the drink. (One might counter that, in the absense of a drink article, the company article should be rescoped to cover both, but that is a content decision not a naming decision, and I am strenuously opposed to article content scope being dictated by article title.)

Hesperian 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"We provide the scope necessary to remove collisions with other notable topics, irrespective of whether or not those other notable topics have articles. ". To my understanding that is not correct. All that matters is whether there is a conflict with another topic actually covered in Wikipedia. Potential conflicts some time in the indefinite future don't count.

For example, assuming X is more commonly used to refer to a given topic than is X ScopeA, "It should be at X ScopeA and not at X because X could some day refer to X ScopeB (which currently does not exist) is an argument to make X a dab page and to create at least a stub for X ScopeB, not an argument to put the article at X ScopeA, redirect X to X ScopeA, and leave X ScopeB unused. If X ScopeB does not exist and there is no plan to create it shortly, and there are no conflicts for X, then the article in question should be at X, not at X ScopeA.

This is because any commonly used name of any notable topic that can be conceived should at least have an article stub, or a redirect to one. This is addressed in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. .

--Born2cycle (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

II think the "covered in Wikipedia" part of that quote is a mistake, and ought to be removed. Nonetheless it is a quote from a guideline that prima facie reflects consensus, and I do not wish to extend this discussion into a new theatre right now, so I shall concede the point and withdraw my final paragraph. This leaves me in the unprecedented position of agreeing 100% with something you said. :-) Hesperian 05:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If there's only one other article, and if X ScopeA is primary, then we don't even need a dab page. That's covered by a standard hatnote: "for Scope B, see X ScopeB." Of course, until X ScopeB is written, we wouldn't do that.

This is just a somewhat pedantic point; I'm not disagreeing with the above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple naming algorithm

The naming algorithm for most articles goes like this.

1. If the article topic has a clear most commonly used name in English that is unique or primary, that is the title.
2. If the article topic has a clear most commonly used name that is ambiguous and not primary, then disambiguate per WP:D, including considering more specific naming guidelines when available and appropriate.
3. If the article topic doesn't have a clear most commonly used name, but several candidates, then pick one by consensus process (follow the principles as currently outlined on this page in that process).

Many articles are named by Step 1 alone (that is, the obvious name identified by the original article creator is it), many more are named by Step 2. Only relatively few require going to Step 3, and only for Step 3 are the principles currently outlined on this page even relevant.

This algorithm needs to be reflected here at WP:NC, because this is how almost all, if not all, Wikipedia articles have been named, and continue to be named.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk • contribs) [8]

The primary name, among non-specialists, for myocardial infarction is "heart attack", which we reject because it is imprecise/not unique (lots of things get called "heart attacks"). Your rule (which says "unique or primary") would have us use an imprecise/non-unique/ambiguous name simply because it is the "primary" choice (of non-specialists). This outcome does not seem desirable. Furthermore, under rule two, names that are ambiguous but primary, or non-ambiguous but decidedly not primary do not benefit from disambiguation.

What constitutes "clear" and "most commonly used" (by whom?) and how clarity differs from "uniqueness" and how common use differs from "primary" use is unclear.

I feel kind of picky in pointing this out, but I want to make a particular point: writing policy is hard because you have to get it right, all the way down to the details of "and" and "or" (and even whether "or" means "xor" or "either or"). It may be possible to re-draft this proposal to be functional, but it will require some work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. This is not an accurate reflection of what we do. It is an overly simplistic algorithm that reflects what Born2cycle wants us to do. There are countless examples where the above algorithm is not followed. Royalty and nobility, for example. Ships; e.g. RMS Titanic. Medical conditions, as demonstrated above. Localities; e.g. Meekatharra, Western Australia. In some of these cases I think the above algorithm would lead to a better outcome. But it certainly does not reflect our current practices, as is being claimed. Hesperian 01:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with WAID here. What is a heart attack is it ( acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, unstable angina )? Common names are often not specific. They also often represent symptoms rather than conditions. A sore throat is not the same as viral pharyngitis, chemical pharyngitis, strep throat. The common names are often used for symptoms which than branch down to actual conditions see head ache which than discusses all the different types.

Attempt to enforce common names will alienate a lot of medical editors and will make many pages confusing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please enforce common names. Or at least common enough names when there are disambig problems. I think myocardial infarction and RMS Titanic are more common than people think, so they aren't good examples. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to? The common name to whom? Should we use stomach ache or abdominal pain, should we use brain surgeon or neurosurgeon. In these two example the current name is the proper one and should not be changed just because good may find more hits for the first rather than the second. This should be decided by the main wikiproject who develops the page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I always assumed that the algorithm was to choose a name you recognize, find where it's used in a blog, and call it a day.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with WAID, in principle. If the most commonly used name in question is not unique or primary (e.g., "heart attack"), then you use the commonly used name that is unique or primary with respect to that topic (e.g., myocardial infarction). That's all part of Step 1.

However, I must say, I just went to Heart attack expecting to find either a general article or a dab page. Instead, I found it simply redirected to Myocardial infarction. That's broken. If that redirect is correct, that implies consensus agreement that the primary topic for Heart attack is the topic of that article. And surely Heart attack is used more commonly to refer to it. If the most commonly used name, Heart attack, is truly primary for that topic, then the article needs to be moved to it (Heart attack). If there is no primary topic for Heart attack, then Heart attack needs to be a dab page listing the topics to which it commonly refers. This is not the place to argue which way to go, only that either way would be consistent with WP naming policy and conventions, but the current situation is not. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another point is that if the most commonly used name for the topic currently at myocardial infarction is Heart attack, then it should be moved to Heart attack because that is the name "readers are most likely to search" and "to which editors will most naturally link from other articles". --Born2cycle (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Need I weigh in again? B2C is speaking to what he wishes the naming conventions were, not what they are or have ever been. That being said, if an article topic has a name which is clearly the primary name for the topic, and is unique, it should generally be used. But the change of this policy from a set of rules to a set of criteria means that this rule should not exist anywhere in Wikipedia, even in an essay, without exceptions (defining in a subarticle, consistant with one of the other naming criteria, and established by consensus) being noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And thus exceptions become the rule. Sigh. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No. ALL rules have exceptions. That's one of the paradoxes of creation. Ignoring that is what stops things working. Wikipedia has 3 million articles. There is no way that all problems that arise in assigning names to these can all be successfully covered by one top-down set of criteria, let alone by one rule. That is why we have all the naming conventions, and why those naming conventions cover the best practices that have been agreed by wikipedia editors in the differing fields to handle these concerns. Those conventions are not restricted artificially from above by an over-riding doctrinaire rule, merely for the sake of demanding compliance with that rule. "Use common names" is a very useful tool on most occasions, but that's what it is - a tool - not an idol to be worshipped. Xandar 23:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course all rules have exceptions, but the exceptions should be relatively rare. The practical way to keep exceptions relatively rare in Wikipedia is to allow them only on a per article basis. What is being promoted here is completely different: it is about making exceptions for entire categories of articles, without any restrictions whatsoever. That's how exceptions to the rule become the rule. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. You want exception to be rare? You got it. By rewriting the "rules" to be broader, more flexible and more inclusive, we have greatly reduced the need for exceptions to be made.

We make exceptions in order to bridge a gap between the "rule" and actual practices. We agree, then, that having lots of exceptions is a problem: it indicates that the gap between "rule" and practices is too great. I guess where is disagree is this: you want to close the gap by bringing practice to the "rule", whereas I (and the rest of us, I think) want to close it by bringing the "rule" to practice.

Hesperian 00:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not the distinction. That's like observing an unsupervised kindergarten playground and determining the proper rules of behavior based on how the kids are behaving. Great, we can establish a rule against firing real guns at each other, since that that is the one behavior not engaged in.

I mean, if you want some consistency, then you can't establish that by simply declaring the current inconsistency to be consistency.

What we have now in Wikipedia naming is mostly consistency, but quite a lot of inconsistency too. But, yeah, it's all relative. Consistency as measured by what standard? Relative to what? With lax or non-existent standards, just about anything can be considered consistent. That seems to be the way you want this to go... Let's loosen up the rules until all the current names are consistent with the rules, so nothing has to change. Never mind that leaves little if any useful guidance on how to name new articles.

But if we are going to have a standard, it's fair to ask, why? I suspect we agree that consistency for the sake of being consistent with some arbitrary standard is pointless. Striving for consistency with the chosen standard has to achieve some kind of benefit, or there is no point in having that standard, I think.

This is exactly why I advocate the "use the most common name" standard. By having articles named consistently with that standard, we achieve the benefit of having Wikipedia article titles identify the most common name used to refer that topic. I see that as a tangible and unique benefit - no other reference does that, and we can provide it without, ironically, violating WP:NOR. In fact, we mostly already do that, except for those categories of articles where well-meaning editors who did not value this WP benefit chose to name those articles differently. Why? To what end? What is the benefit achieved for the reader? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't want to declare the current inconsistency to be consistency. I think we all want to look at the bloody great mess of naming that is out there, figure out what works and what doesn't, get some idea of what people are thinking when they make good sensible naming decisions, and articulate the basic principles, so as to quickly get newbs up to speed and hopefully discourage some of the stupider naming decisions.

As an engineer, you'll understand the model fitting metaphor. A horribly complicated model that perfectly fits noisy data is completely bloody useless. We don't want a naming convention that predicts and endorses every single naming decision we've ever made. We agree on that. But a beautifully elegant and parsimonious model that doesn't fit the data at all, is also completely bloody useless. We don't want an idealistic naming convention that completely fails to explain the decisions that people are actually making out there. I contend this describes your "use the most common name" convention—a beautiful, elegant, parsimonious, idealistic convention that fails utterly to capture the complexity of our day-to-day naming decisions. The perfect model is one that perfectly fits the signal hiding within the noise, without fitting to the noise at all. That's what we're trying to do here: to tease out the principles underlying the vast majority of our naming decisions, without being sucked into recording the day-to-day background noise of bad individual decisions.

Hesperian 01:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorsed names

For a long time I've been tossing around the idea of names that are official, canonical, standardised, etcetera. I think what it comes down to is that they are endorsed by some authoritative external body.

There can be no doubt that external endorsement carries weight in naming on Wikipedia:

• Bird articles follow the IOC World Bird List, with few exceptions;
• In regions where an authoritative gazetteer is publicly available, geographic locality and feature articles almost always use the gazetted name, with exceedingly few exceptions;
• Published works nearly always use the published title, even if the work is better known by some other name e.g. "Metallica (album)" not "The Black Album".
• Stars are an excellent example: use the traditional name if one has been approved by the International Astronomical Union; else use the Bayer designation if one exists; else use the Flamsteed designation if one exists; else use the Draper number or the Gliese number, whichever is more commonly used.
• Articles on chemical elements, many compounds, and isotopes are named in accordance with the recommendations of the IUPAC.
• In medicine, we consult the World Health Organization International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD 10) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) on disease names; we use the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) of drugs; and we title human anatomy articles in accordance with Terminologia Anatomica.

Arguably the self-identifying names controversy raging elsewhere fits in here too. Those who are arguing for recognition of self-identifying names are essentially arguing that the fact that (for example) "Myanmar" is endorsed by the government and people of that country should count for something. And they bring further supporting arguments by recourse to the UN and other authorities; this fits in here too.

I think it is beyond dispute that many people consider endorsement by external authorities an important consideration when naming articles in fields where such authorities exist. Is this another principle, or is it a non-obvious application of one or more principles that we have already articulated.

Hesperian 02:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking that providing a summary statement of the above would strengthen the understanding of reliable sources? There could be some argument that the IOC World Bird list and similar organizations are a more legitimate source than groups comparable to the United Nations. The logic would be that the first has a hand in the actual official naming of a bird (this is an assumption) whereas the United Nations only recognizes a nation as a participant. It would seem that precise definition of the third party endorsement would make the concept more effective and remove future potential argument. Just some thoughts.--^StormRider 02:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If this gets included at all, it would be a brief one-or-two-sentence statement of principle. Deciding upon how to balance the use of endorsed nomenclature against other principles like "use the most common name" would be a matter for discussion towards consensus. Hesperian 02:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose making this a principle: this is pedantry. If the names of the official body have become widely used, then this provision is unnecessary; if they have not, it is undesirable. (If nothing is common usage, then they are probably most common in the absence of anything else.) There was a long debate at WT:MOSNUM - one of my reasons for my opinion of the place - about whether we should use Kibibytes, because some standard-making body has said everybody should. This was eventually laughed out as mandating incomprehensibility - so should this be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like some reliable sources. They shouldn't be given any more weight than that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

But is that what people are thinking when they choose these names? When you choose the gazetted name as the title of your new locality stub, what is going through your mind? Are you consciously trying to reflect usage in reliable sources; or are you consciously trying to use the most common name; or are you consciously choosing that name because that is its name because that is what the gazetteer says its name is? I would argue that the last of these is the correct one. Hesperian 02:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And the gazeteer is a reliable source, not an official one. When I start an article (rarely necessary nowadays), I follow the usage of the reliable source where I found out about the subject that has led me to a redlink. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources to primary sources [1]. Resources that define or specify "official, canonical, standardised" names, in the context of determining names that people are most likely to recognize, are arguably primary sources, and should be given far less preference than secondary sources, like usage in the NY Times or the London Times. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I reject that premise in toto. Primary sources are not used when interpretations can be different or the meaning is ambiguous, which would not be the case in this situation. More strongly, use newspapers to solely define common language is exactly the type of logic I think is a detriment to Wikipedia because it often appeals to the lowest common denominator. Secondary sources should meet the standards of reliable sources. I may have misunderstood your position and that you were not postulating that newspapers are the "go to" source. Peer reviewed, academic sources is where I go first. Newspapers though possible for a source are not a preferred source, IMHO. --^StormRider 06:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't stress, Storm Rider. Everyone rejects this particular premise. This particular unique point of view is what makes Born2cycle so special. ;-) Hesperian 07:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This point is also reflected in the Manual of Style, which at Wikipedia:MOS#Identity says: "When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too." Xandar 10:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another flaky guideline, written by a bunch of politically correct editors; it is generally ignored, like the rest of those essays. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions on that guideline are well known, however they are not shared by most other editors. Xandar 23:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the case of bird names, the example Sun Parakeet/Sun Conure comes to mind. A lot of principles have been thrown around in that debate, including COMMONNAME, reliable sources, reliable sources in one domain versus another, experts from the actual continent where these birds live versus experts across the globe, scientists who study birds versus people who keep them as pets, the moral acceptability of keeping them as pets, etc., etc., etc.

Just another example to chew on. Sometimes third-party endorsements, independently considered reliable, disagree with each other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy

I just noticed that we list "recognizable", "easy to find", "precise", "concise", "consistent" and "unique", but not "accurate". Don't we try to ensure that the title of the article actually is the name of what the article's about? Is that covered under precision? Thoughts? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think accuracy is one of the most important aspects of naming. Xandar 10:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it's covered by some combination of the other principles, Xandar? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up quite a few times. I think there is something very important here, else I wouldn't have repeatedly raised the Metallica (album)-v-The Black Album example. "Metallica" is the name of the album, and any other name would be wrong. Nonetheless I have been convinced by others that accuracy is a very slippery concept indeed. Usually when we say that one name is more accurate than another, what we mean is that some authority has declared itself in favour of a particular name. In the extreme case, this may be the author of a book, who surely has the moral authority to decide upon its name (but even in this case we might reject it). At the other end of the spectrum we have self-appointed standards bodies who make arbitrary and unilateral decisions about the common names of mammals, and expect everyone else to follow them. If you turn it on its head, the question arises whether we would ever reject a grossly inaccurate name that everyone uses. Arguably we do at gravitation (as opposed to the more common but incorrect "gravity"), but this one example is swamped by the billions of counter-examples: sheoaks are not female oaks; starfish are not fish; and there is nothing French about French Fries. It is this mess that prompted me to start talking about #Endorsed names above. Hesperian 11:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another aspect of accuracy is scope (or circumscription, as the taxonomists call it). As I pointed out above wrt Paris, its department, and its arrondisement, and as I have pointed out before with Joshua tree being a name for Yucca brevifolia subsp. brevifolia rather than the species, a name can be inaccurate by specifying a superset or subset of the article subject.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is part of precision rather than accuracy. Hesperian 13:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we articulate both as one principle: "Accuracy and precision"? They're not the same, but in the same ballpark. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Could do. The argument that we follow usage regardless of whether it is accurate or not is pretty strong, but I still think there is evidence that editors are taking accuracy/correctness into account when naming pages. For example, without recourse to accuracy/correctness, it is pretty hard to explain why we chose the title University of Oxford over the much more common, more concise and equally precise "Oxford University". Hesperian 14:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Burma shhhhh! is where it is for reasons of accuracy. The main recurring argument for that name is that "Myanmar" is imposed by an illegitimate government. (?!?) I say that's the main argument for the current title, because the COMMONNAME argument cuts both ways, depending how you determine commonality. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's a balance of political arguments; the other side being that the "self-determination" of a Third World Country should be respected at all costs. Underneath these conflicting noises, there is a reasonable case that Burma, like North Korea, is still the prevalent English usage - including a BBC article (one of the sources) which says they use Burma because more readers will understand them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think we need to debate this point here. I agree that the political argument cuts both ways, but that's not what I'm talking about remotely. All I'm trying to say is (A) a case can be made for either name based on COMMONNAME, and (B) argument that seemed, in my observation of the debate to carry the day, was that editors here don't consider Myanmar to be accurate.

Maybe many people are swayed by the commonness of "Burma", but many people aren't. In my experience as a student and looker-at-maps, Myanmar is more common. It is not cut-and-dry; that's all. Please don't debate the name of that article here.

My only point is that accuracy is a consideration in the minds of editors here. I'm not saying that Burma is more or less accurate, just that a good handful of real, live Wikipedians perceive it to be more accurate, and perceive that to be a consideration that matters. Am I wrong? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have difficulty imagining a claim of "accuracy" that is not fundamentally a claim of "it expresses my PoV"; certainly both sides in the Burma debate did that.
• I suppose there are cases of downright error: "Giuseppe Roncalli became John XXIII, not John XXI", but these fall into two classes:
  • Following the usage of reliable sources ("See, all these books call him John XXIII"
  • Pushing a private opinion against the judgment of the sources ("No, he was really John XXI, because there was no real John XXI, or XXII"; arguable, but against consensus - in an alternate universe, another pope could have chosen differently on the same facts, but Roncalli didn't.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Following that line of reasoning, would you contend that "accuracy" is not, or should not be, one of our naming principles? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I would: Verifiability, not truth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a little scary for an encyclopedia. I would be on the other side (support accuracy) because it limits conversation. What is the name of the individual, country, etc. It removes value judgments from the equation and focuses the discussion solely on reality as defined by reliable references. In the case of Burma, there would be no conversation about what is a legitimate form of government or not. In the case of an album, it is the name of the album, etc. To me accuracy simplifies the discussion about choosing the proper title. --^StormRider 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you might be happier in some other project. The first paragraph of one of our core policies says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

That is our fundamental protection against bias and censorship; it is a gamble, but so far a successful one. We have mirrors that choose otherwise; if they are more successful, so be it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I think you're right. Saying that "accuracy" or "correctness" is one of our naming guidelines indicates that we're shooting for some kind of correctness over and above what we can verify in reliable sources. At that point, we should be writing scripture, not an encyclopedia.

The fact remains that people often make arguments in naming disputes that are based on perceived correctness. What to do about that is an interesting question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are not reading my edit so I went back and put in the bold letters to make it absolutely clear; it is impossible to have verifiability without having reliable references or sources. Truth has nothing to do with it, but it was a nice smokescreen. The moment we are not interested in accuracy (accuracy has nothing to do with truth, accuracy deals with facts as identified by experts) and we just want to play with opinions, there is no credibility. --^StormRider 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If this means that we should follow the usage of reliable sources, we already say that; if it means something more, what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If one defines "accuracy" to mean "accuracy as determined by reliable sources", then there is no problem, right? If one defines "accuracy" to mean something else - and many editors do - then there can be some disagreement. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy is the consideration of using reliable sources, not just as something to count and weigh against each other in bundles, but to ensure that a name used is actually the correct descriptor. An example I used earlier in the argument on self-identification is Canadian Navy which is the most common name in English for a body which actually redirects to Canadian Forces Maritime Command. The latter is the more accurate name, since the Canadian forces are not separate but an integrated force with varied "commands". Accuracy is also a reason we prefer Indigenous Australians to the more popular "aborigines". Xandar 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it? If you click on aboriginies, you'll find that it can apply to many groups of people, and is therefore not used per precision. Additionally, modern reliable sources don't call those people "aboriginies", so doing so would go against sources. I'm not sure that accuracy really is the reason, except insofar as it dovetails with sources and precision. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, also, "Aborigines" isn't inaccurate at all. It is one thing to say "Mormon Church" or "Canadian Navy" is inaccurate - those are actual institutions that have official names. There is no objectively "correct" name for indigenous Australians. I think the key issue for all of this is to follow the usage of the best reliable sources. john k (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To me, accuracy would be valuable in controversial naming conflicts where value judgments so easily influence editors. For example, the discussion of the name of the nation of Myanmar. The question of properly formed government is superfluous and is more properly addressed in the body of the the article itself; it has nothing to do with naming. All reliable sources would say that the current nation of Myanmar is called Myanmar. That is accurate, devoid of value judgments, strictly neutral, and recognizing the reality of the nation for decades.

"Truth" has nothing to do with Wikipedia and never has. Your recent edit, PM, was a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that only existed in your own mind. You seem to edit defensively and against specific individuals without thought to the process at large. Before editing again, please consult with us and we will save you the time and effort. --^StormRider 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no need to personalize the discussion by describing other editors here as "defensive", and making "knee-jerk edits" against a "problem that only exists in their own mind", or as editing "without thought to the process at large". Unless you can tell me what number I'm thinking of, you can't read minds. Let's keep this professional, on-topic, and non-personalized, eh? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, GT, let's look at the progress of edits:

1. I state that accuracy is important and scary to leave out of the conversation and I clearly state, "focuses the discussion solely on reality as defined by reliable references"
2. PM then proceeds to to somehow think I want to include "truth" into the conversation by stating, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". This was a knee-jerk reaction to my statement without understanding what I clearly stated.
3. PM then edits the article to read, "In adopting the usage of reliable sources in what to call something, we follow our wider principle of verifiability, not truth." It is a little difficult for me to think this is anything but a knee-jerk response to a problem that is only in PM's mind. Do you have another explanation for his edit to the article or his response to me?
4. PM has a history of doing this type of editing. It invites conflict, it is insulting to others, and it defeats any cooperative spirit that existed.

It makes little sense to not call a spade when it screams at you. The objective of calling it is to make it stop, to change behavior, and to encourage what was a cooperative conversation. --^StormRider 23:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, the trouble with your "spade" (nice racist allusion) strategy is that it doesn't work. Maybe the "goal" of calling a spade is to make it stop, but that's effective 0% of the time. What it does is make the gardening implement argue back at you, and then we're even further off-topic, listening to people bitch about each other instead of getting anything done. If you had the power over humans to actually change someone's behavior simply by telling them they're being bad, I'd give you an effing Nobel Prize. Since you don't, try something effective instead. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well, let me be accurate.

• I answered Bacchus's question with a famous and long-standing aphorism, deeply rooted in core policy. That was where "truth" came in; despite Storm Rider's snit, it was not addressed to him.
• Storm Rider called that answer scary, and expressed opposition to it; I answered, quoting the context in full. Anyone who does oppose "Verifiability, not truth" is unlikely to be happy or productive in Wikipedia space, or arguing Wikipedia policy; anyone who misunderstood it, and it can be misunderstood, is free to rephrase remarks made under a misapprehension.
• I am tired of being misquoted, and accused of making remarks I did not make. Is this a deliberate strategy intended to derail discussion. This has effectively derailed discussion here and elsewhere; please do not do this again.
• Born2Cycle is right insofar as he says that common names are important; this page is right that common names should come from reliable sources; having quoted "verifiability, not truth", it seemed to explain why, and still does. None of this was intended to rile Storm Rider, but to elucidate policy.
• While it would be simple to retaliate on Storm Rider's history, those remarks are better addressed to a different audience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy counter-proposal

I have come to the view that "accuracy" is only needed when there is a gap between the name expected by readers on searching for the article, and the name expected after having read the article, and thus informed themselves on the topic.

• Readers will search for "Oxford University", and may be surprised to find themselves whisked off to University of Oxford, but they only have to read the first sentence before the penny drops and they say "Yes, I see now. The title is right after all."
• Readers will search for "The Black Album"; but in reading the article they will learn that "The Black Album" is an nickname for what is in fact a self-titled album. Having informed themselves, the majority of people will expect the article to be at "Metallica" (modulo disambiguation).
• Same deal for plants that have a long history under a name that has had to be changed. Publish a new name for an old plant, and, though you may have the unanimous support of everyone whose opinion counts, still it takes twenty years for the name to creep into the vocabulary of the average weekend bush-walker. For at least the next decade, people are going to be arriving at Banksia sessilis through a search for Dryandra sessilis. The title is going to surprise people. But once they've read the article they will understand why we chose the title we did, and, mostly, agree.
• Same deal for Xandar's "Canadian Navy" example. People might search for this term initially, but after having read the article will they will see "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" as the most appropriate title.

The problem, then is the wording of our "easy to find" principle: "Good article titles use the term by which readers are most likely to search for the article". This puts way too much emphasis on the initial search terms. If applied in the above cases, we would have to move "University of Oxford" to "Oxford University"; "Metallica (album)" to "The Black Album"; "Banksia sessilis" to "Dryandra sessilis"; and "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" to "Canadian Navy". Such moves would eliminate the initial moment of surprise, when the reader discovers that the title is not what they had expected. But there will be a later moment of surprise, when the now-informed reader learns that our title is not so good after all. Far better to be surprised before you knew anything about the topic, than to read up on the topic and then be surprised.

Therefore what we should be doing here is setting aside the undefinable concept of "accuracy", and instead revising our "easy to find" principle to take this into accoun.

The nice thing about this counter-proposal is that it cannot be deployed in situations where there is a genuine real-world naming dispute. The Macedonia naming disputers would be able to take up "accuracy" and use it as a weapon, by claiming that their preferred name is more "accurate" than the alternative(s). But so long as Wikipedia continues to cover the dispute in an accurate and even-handed manner, as it must, it is not possible to argue that informed readers will walk away from the article with a consistent view of what the title should be.

Hesperian 23:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this: The now-informed reader learns that our title is not so good after all.

In each case, if the title is at the name most likely to be expected and searched for name by most, then the title is not only good, but ideal.

The very idea that there is some kind of objective criteria for determining the best or most accurate name, other than which is most commonly used, is fundamentally flawed. Names are just that, names. There is no right or wrong. There is no name that is more or less "accurate". The only criteria that should matter is which name is the name most commonly used to refer to the topic in question. That, and only that, is reason to use it as the title. What relevance is there when some probably obscure document or "reliable source" declares the "official" name to be this or that?

Names evolve, and Wikipedia should simply reflect the current most commonly used name for each topic covered. Trying to be more sophisticated than that results in a guaranteed quagmire of contention and ambiguity.

So, let us go with the most commonly used name, as best as we can, and be done with it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So which name would you go with in the following situation, assuming for the sake of the argument that my numbers are accurate?

Article name	Percentage of users preferring this name
	When searching for the article	After having read the article
Metallica (album)	10%	90%
The Black Album	90%	10%

You are of course at liberty to deny the availability of such numbers, but I'd like to hear which name you would support in this hypothetical situation all the same.

Hesperian 00:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure readers have a problem finding articles; do we? The technology is just too good in directing readers to their articles today; if you can think of a name for it we can link to the right article.

As a reader of encyclopedias, I look for knowledge and/or to be informed about a topic. If, in my ignorance, I use slang or common language for something, I am gratified when I actually learn a more proper name for the topic. This gratification is not unique, but is the common experience of learning.

I don't think we are talking about typical situations, but in the event that there is confusion over which name to choose, it seems like we aid the community by directing a preference for accurate names. Again, I don't think this confusion or problem is common, but I do think it would assist directing when the occaision does arise. --^StormRider 00:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes; I mostly agree. I just don't see "accuracy" as helpful here. The key to this is the fact that you only searched using the slang term because you didn't know better. Having informed yourself, having learned "a more proper name for the topic", in future you would search for information on the topic under that other name. What I'm saying is that the name you prefer after you have fully informed yourself on the topic, is a better choice than the name you preferred in ignorance beforehand. We don't need to introduce the concept of "accuracy" to capture this. Hesperian 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to talk about a "counter-proposal" when there was no initial proposal, just a question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

SR, article naming has little if anything to do with helping users find articles for the reasons you cited.

H, I love the way you presented this problem. Until the article has had enough influence in the public at large to change the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of the article, the title should continue to reflect the name currently used most commonly. So, in your example, at least for now, I'd go with the The Black Album. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And you acknowledge that this means readers will disapprove of the name on the way out rather than on the way in? Hesperian 01:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And what really matters is the whether the name readers use after reading the article is affected by reading the article. That is, do they start talking and writing about the album Metallica, rather than the Black Album, when they refer to the album, after they read the article? And, even then, until the numbers of readers who read and whose own usage is changed by that article is sufficient to cause an overall change in usage in the population at large, it doesn't matter. Besides, there is no way to know the article is even having that effect to any significant degree until overall actual usage in that manner changes. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle, it sounds like you want to propose moving Feces to a new title -- one that is substantially more frequently heard. Under your system, Sexual intercourse and Anus would also have to be moved to more, ah, common (by which I mean "vulgar") terms. Schizophrenia will have to move to "schizo", and we'd re-title the specific concept of Mental retardation with the vaguer but au courant politically correct choice of "intellectual disability". We'll need a team to do frequent checks on the current status of pages like African-American, because names for disadvantaged minority groups occasionally change rapidly.

The list goes on, but I hope that you see the difficulty with ignoring every consideration except how many page hits a term gets.

Oh, and I can think of several names that are wrong, in the sense that they impart entirely inaccurate information. The original name for one rare hematological disease, for example, names the wrong cell as the cause of the disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that you say original name - I take it that another name is now in use? If so, we should use the new name, since it has succeeded in displacing the old; if it has not, we should indulge the common error for the sake of communicating. Several well-established names imply historical error, but we use them anyway, because the sources do; consider Pellian equation, which is so called because Euler made a mistake, two centuries ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's another good example of why "accuracy" is problematic; yet I do not see it as problematic for my counter-proposal. Having read the article, the reader is not going to walk away with the sense that we chose the wrong name; they are going to walk away with the sense that we chose the right name—a name which just happens to be rooted in an error. Hesperian 03:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what your counter-proposal is, exactly. If you could formulate it, even roughly, it would help. I am also cautious about appealints from the arriving reader to the reader informed by the article; too many users want to improve and instruct the reader (by which they mean teaching him their point of view) as it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair point; at this point I can see that it is broken, but haven't figured out how to fix it yet. Tell me, what would be your answer to the question that I framed in the table above? Hesperian 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Further from seeing what the "counter-proposal" is, I don't see what the original proposal was! I started the "accuracy" section with a question, and I think we've answered it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Further up you said 'The fact remains that people often make arguments in naming disputes that are based on perceived correctness. What to do about that is an interesting question'. The proposal/question/whatever about including accuracy as a principle was aimed at that. This is a different proposal that is also aimed at that. Hesperian 05:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, here I'm not asking anything, but commenting. I wondered aloud whether we should include "accuracy" as a criterion, the answer was determined to be "no" for good reasons, and here we are. Are you suggesting that any particular principle be added to the list, or that we've already got the principles we need, or is it something else you're proposing?

Now I'm asking a question. Namely: What is your "counter-proposal", in a few words? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(Darn clipped edit summary) - No, I think I found it. You're suggesting that the "ease of searching" criterion puts too much weight on first search terms. I agree. I think there's a little bit of astonishment in seeing a different title than what one searched for, but if it's clear that the title they find is better - in terms of being precise, supported by sources, etc. - then I think that's fine. The "ease of searching" criterion is, in a way, an artifact of Web 1.0, when we hadn't yet internalized the whole "redirect" thing. People now are very accustomed to typing "kayaniskatsi" or something similar and having Google say, "Did you mean, koyaanisqatsi?" -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm ready now. I didn't realise it when I started this section, but my proposal, in a few words, is restore the guidance that we follow usage in reliable sources.

The "easy to find" principle tells us to use the name that readers will use to search for the article. This puts way too much emphasis on the names used by people in ignorance of the relevant facts. I'm much more interested in the name that readers will prefer after they have read the article and become well-informed. People will search for "The Black Album", but they'll hopefully learn something from reading our article, namely the fact that the album is self-titled, and they'll then expect the article title to be "Metallica (album)". People will search for "Oxford University", but by the time they have read the first six words they will fully support the title "University of Oxford". This is what people mean when they say a name is "correct" or "accurate": they mean that the name is preferred by people who are in possession of the relevant facts.

It would be great to say "Use the name preferred by people who know what they are talking about", but, in accordance with "verifiability not truth", I think this would have to be rephrased as "Use the name preferred in reliable sources". On comprehending this, I was about to withdraw my counter-proposal and bow out gracefully, when I discovered that the "follow usage in reliable sources" guidance has been removed. This is not acceptable. I know from personal experience that this is a basic principle of naming in many parts of Wikipedia. Hesperian 06:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - What he said. Well put, Hesperian. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support with comments. The sources should be good proxies for "people who know what they're talking about"; sources that don't know what they're talking about aren't reliable.
• There may be special cases in which the sources are not representative of knowledgable English usage. For one example, histories of Fooland may tend to be more pedantic in representing Foolandic names than the average person who knows Foolandish history; all of the historians read Foolandic, and read more of it than other people. But this is IAR, and a reason to avoid unqualified commands.
• As a fine point, some authors probably use Metallica themselves, but call it Black Album in print, either to communicate with readers, or not to seem to show off. We are in much the same situation, and should probably give their usage equal weight, especially since (without a comment in the preface) it's hard to tell who they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - You have exactly summarized my thoughts about accuracy! Thank you.--^StormRider 16:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Usage in reliable sources simply does not reflect how the majority, if not the vast majority, of Wikipedia articles are named. Actual common usage, which is often in conflict with "usage in reliable sources" (especially if those reliable sources are obscure reference books and manuals). Of course, in many cases the usage in reliable sources and in common usage is the same, so the distinction in all those cases is moot. So this distinction is only relevant when there is a conflict between common usage and usage in reliable sources, and those are exactly the cases where Wikipedia has usually (unfortunately not consistently) given preference to the most common usage.

  As to claims by WhatamIdoing above that preferring common usage means:

Sexual intercourse and Anus would also have to be moved to more, ah, common (by which I mean "vulgar") terms. Schizophrenia will have to move to "schizo", and we'd re-title the specific concept of Mental retardation with the vaguer but au courant politically correct choice of "intellectual disability". We'll need a team to do frequent checks on the current status of pages like African-American, because names for disadvantaged minority groups occasionally change rapidly.

Uh, not exactly. First, while vulgar usage is common, I reject the notion that it is more common than words like Sexual intercourse and Anus. We have to consider usage in schools, churches, books, magazines, newspapers etc. as well as usage in construction sites. Common usage does not mean ignoring reliable sources; usage in reliable sources is a subset of common usage.

Your other examples actually support my argument. We would continue to use names like Mental retardation until and unless the more politically correct term actually achieved most common usage status, same with references to disadvantaged minority groups.

Names are names. Wikipedia article titles should reflect the name most commonly used to refer to the topic in question. Simple. Clear. Very useful (for indicating what the most common name is). Usage exclusive to "reliable sources" that conflicts with common usage should rarely if ever be given preference. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose-ish Still reeling after the Ireland-name-vote. One point raised during that debate was that articles on states are seldom located at their "correct" names e.g. France not French Republic, Australia not Commonwealth of Australia, Lybia not Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and so on. Common usage in reliable sources for many topics often don't use the "correct" name. Keeping an encyclopediac tone will easily rule out vulgarities. We also should keep in mind that our purpose here is to inform, not to be know-alls. A person reading an article at the "wrong title" should be informed of the correct name for the subject - but that is the purpose of the body of the article, not the title. The purpose of the title is so that they may find the article (maybe before they know what the "correct" title is) and so that it can be easily linked to from other articles (where the common name for the topic may be the preferred phraseology over the "correct" name). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"A person reading an article at the "wrong title" should be informed of the correct name for the subject - but that is the purpose of the body of the article, not the title.". Exactly! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not an issue of finding an article and never has been. Wikipedia technolgoy is very good and you type in anything close and editors have made it so that you will arrive at the proper article...and learn the proper title in the process. The body may include alternative names and explain the proper name. --^StormRider 07:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikimedia UI is only one of many ways that people access Wikipedia content. Wikipedia has also been officially published (i.e. by the Wikimedia Foundation) on CD-ROM and as a book. Third party publishers/redistributors of Wikipedia content (of which there are a great many, both commercial and non-commerical) will likely not use a UI that we are used to - whether they publish on a website, another digital form, in print or through another media.

When we write an article, we need to write it from a technologically neutral perspective because we do not know how a reader will access it. The vast majority of readers access it through the Wikimedia UI. Children in an African village working of print-out sheets organised in binders, do not. These are the extemes of access that we have to bear in mind. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Varieties of English

The mention of Lyons led me to look up the context in WP:NCGN.

Where, as with Lyon, different national varieties of the English language spell a foreign name differently, we should also consider our guidance on national varieties of English, which would have articles in British English call the city Lyons, articles in American English Lyon, and the article itself use either, consistently. Articles should not be moved from one national variety to the other without good reasons; our principle of most common name does not mean "use American, because there are more Americans in the English speaking world".

Should we make this point here, instead of having our specific guidelines appeal to ENGVAR? (Some other example than Lyons would be appropriate to the wider scope here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fauna and flora

Is it necessary to have so much detail about the fauna and flora guidance here? Can we replace it with just the links to the flora and fauna NC's, perhaps with a very concise summary? (And if anyone says this is something to do with the distinction between policy and guidelines I shall scream...)--Kotniski (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an explicit exception to the general rule for capitalization, so it needs to be here until they are harmonized.

The distinction between policy and guideline (please don't scream) would suggest moving the first sentence up to Lowercase words and leaving the rest to the projects; but we may want to rethink the general guidance as well; it's not generally applicable as it stands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cups hands to mouth, takes deep breath... Oh wait. You said please don't scream. Never mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to scream quietly... Is this somethining that's the subject of ongoing discussion, or has it been decided? If the guidance is settled, then surely we just mention at the general rule for capitalization that there are different rules for fauna and flora, and link to them? We don't have to have (and certainly don't have) every exception written out explicitly on this page.--Kotniski (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; the examples given seem to be followed, and birds are capped (I checked Least Tern). How should this sort of exception be generalized? Follow usage in a given field, with birds as an example? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Haddock's eyes

I see Born2cycle has introduced

Titles should indicate what the name of the corresponding article topic is, and make Wikipedia easy to use. Article titles do this if they are:

Does this remind anyone of the discussion in Through the Looking Glass summarized here?

Perhaps more importantly, it makes the unempirical assertion that topics always have only one name (otherwise the name is ill-defined). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How odd. I just left exactly the same allusion on Born2cycle's user talk page. My main concern is that our article Haddocks' Eyes is located at what the name of the song is called, not what the name of the song is. Hesperian 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what the name really is, we use the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of the article in question, which is exactly Haddocks' Eyes in this case. This makes my point. Who knows what the name of something "really" is? How do you even determine that? Does usage in reliable source tell you what the name "really" is? Really? Are you sure? How do you know? I call BS. What we can determine, in most cases, is the name most commonly used to refer to the topic in question. That's why it's such a good choice. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of tricky reasoning there. Neither "Usage in reliable sources" nor "most commonly used" tells you what the name really is. They are both algorithms for finding a suitable name. You can't dismiss one of the grounds you've given above without dismissing the other too.

But the point PMAnderson is raising here has nothing to do with reliable sources. It is about whether it is appropriate to refer to "the name", as if every topic is in possession of a referent deserving of having the definite article stuck in front of it. Hesperian 00:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Whoa, Hesperian made the same comparison on my talk page. Did you guys really come up with this independently??? If so... that's kind of creepy.

We clearly have common background; probably the essay "Symbolic Notation, Haddocks' Eyes and the Dog-Walking Ordinance", by Ernest Nagel; moderately well-known, since it was reprinted in James Newman, four-volume World of Mathematics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd love to say it was Nagel, but in my case it think it may have been this :-) Hesperian 00:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And on the subject of common background, both "Hesperian" and "Septentrionalis" are terms of Latin origin, with directional meaning in English (western and northern respectively). What gives, man? Are you my sockpuppet or what? Hesperian 01:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Revealed at last! I'm his evil twin; this explains why we are (I gather) editing from different continents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It makes the unempirical assertion that topics always have only one name. Not at all. The word "should" implies sometimes it's not possible, including when a given topic has more than one name. However, now that you mention it, it would be more helpful and accurate to say, "the most commonly used name" rather than "the name". Thanks!. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. You're back in the business of putting "most commonly used" on a pedestal. There is clearly no consensus for that, and arguably consensus against it. Hesperian 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please revert yourself immediately, and do not do that again! Hesperian 00:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I already made such a fix here, and Born2cycle seemed to have no objection to it. If Born2cycle objects to "should tell the reader what the corresponding articles are about", and we object to "should indicate what the name of the corresponding article topic is", then perhaps "should indicate the topic of the article" is a reasonable compromise. I would not be averse to "should name or otherwise indicate the topic of the article". I also would not be averse to "should name the topic of the article", since, inevitably, that is what a title does. Hesperian 00:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're okay with "should name the topic" then isn't "should reflect the name of the topic" better since naming a topic implies coming up with something original (like naming your car) and is arguably a violation of WP:NOR (of course, that's exactly what Fixed-wing aircraft is, an abomination if you ask me, but at least a per article exception). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not happy with wording that implies "invent a name". I am happy with wording that implies "apply a name". I am not happy with wording that says "apply the name". Hesperian 01:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Back on track now; thankyou. With respect to "Articles titles should name or describe the subject of the article", I believe there is very strong consensus that we should use a name if it is available. This wording might suggest that we go with descriptions if we don't like a name. Hesperian 01:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

But there are many topics, like all the list articles, where a descriptive title is necessary (or Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, from WP:LEAD). I have no objection to making Hesperian's point, but I'm not sure the start of the intro is the right place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done (under Concise). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we choose names rather than descriptions because they are concise. I think we use them because they are the perfect starting point with respect to precision.

Whilst casting about for an illuminating example, I discovered that "Einstein" is at least as recognizable as "Albert Einstein", at least as easy to find, more concise, probably preferred by reliable sources, and sufficiently precise. The only remaining principle is consistency, and I don't believe we prefer the latter name solely for that reason. Hesperian 03:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is both precision and conciseness (we use first names for consistency - although trying to remember first names when there is no redirect from the surname is a major annoyance). 1921 Nobel Laureate in Physics (or even inventor of relativity) is more precise than Einstein; you have forgotten his cousin, Alfred Einstein, the music critic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point with respect to preciseness. Alf is irrelevant. If "Einstein" weren't sufficiently precise, then we wouldn't have a redirect from it. Since we're supposed to be no more precise than necessary, that's a win for "Einstein" over "Albert Einstean", which, by virtue of being more precise than a name that is sufficiently precise, is too precise (I'm channelling B2c here.) You may have convinced me that "we use first names for consistency". Hesperian 04:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He's not irrelevant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Glorious indeed; but I'm still not going to wallow in it. Hesperian 05:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah, some titles are descriptive, not names

PMAnderson pointed out in a summary comment that some titles are descriptive, not names. Well, yeah, like List of Blah. But I think it's reasonably accurate to say that that is only when there is no name for the article topic. That is, with the conditional "Whenever possible, ...", it's true that titles should reflect the name of the topic. If the topic has no name, then, obviously, the title should be something that reasonably describes the topic. But, that should only be true (with perhaps a per article exception here or there) for topics that have no names.

And I noted that all this begs the question of WHAT name the title should indicate. Here the leading candidates seem to be:

1. The name most commonly used exclusively in reliable sources.
2. The names most commonly used by the population at large, including in reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, books, etc.), but not ignoring popular usage in so-called unreliable sources such as conversations, blogs, letters to the editor, etc., sources that reflect actual usage by people likely to use the encyclopedia.

As I said above, the distinction is moot in many if not most cases, for the criteria often produce the same result. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most of the time, as with London or Kiev, these are the same name. When they differ, there are three reasons why we should choose reliable sources:

• We can provide evidence on what reliable sources do; we can quote them. If we pursue "actual" usage, we are likely to be conducting original research.
• It is what our readers will expect of an encyclopedia (consider Feces, again; likewise, referring to reliable sources is an easy answer to the troll who argues that Group X should be called by [ethnic slur], which is so common on the Internet - I hope our readers will be pleased).
• It avoids the (hypothetical) Metallica case above: suppose those who know something about a subject use a different name than those who don't.

We may well differ on the weight and validity of these; but there are three of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(@B2c) With respect to your first point, we all seem to agree that we use a name if one exists. The issue PMA raises above is whether that guidance needs to be in the lead. Personally I think it does, though not necessarily in the very first sentence. With respect to your second point, it is indeed begging the question of what name the title should indicate. The whole point of much of this rewrite is to beg that question, because observation of naming decisions across Wikipedia and over several years leads inevitably to the conclusion that there is no single answer to that question. There are multiple principles at work here, and where different principles suggest different names, that is resolved by consensus. Hesperian 01:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PMAnderson about the need to follow reliable sources, rather than "actual usage". Must...fight...desire to be pedantic about use of the phrase "begging the question..." john k (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops :-) Hesperian 01:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(more @ B2c) I was wandering through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals a little while ago, and I noticed an entry entitled Define reliable sources. The reason given for the rejection of this proposal is "Assessing the reliability of sources requires sound editorial judgment, not strict adherence to a list of rules." This captures well my view on article titles. Choosing the best article title requires sound editorial judgment, not strict adherence to a list of rules. Hesperian 03:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems right. On the other hand, and to play the devil's advocate a bit, to what extent can we rely on sound editorial judgment on Wikipedia? Is it realistic to expect that we can accomplish things that way? john k (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is realistic, but I do know that it is policy; this is the very essence of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. There is a beautiful quote on Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means:

"Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery."

Hesperian 06:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian 06:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)