Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Boa Sr.

What should we call a biographical article on s.o. named Boa Sr.? Should the period be kept? The "Sr." means "senior", and the person has no last name. kwami (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's just a shorthand for Senior then the title should be "Boa, Sr.", with all the punctuation. --Golbez (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Question... is the "senior" considered part of her name, or is it more of an honorific used because of her age (or to distingish her from, say, Boa Jr.)? If the latter, a better title might be Boa (Andamanese elder)... Then in the first paragraph you can establish that she was commonly referred to as "Boa Sr." and explain why. Just a thought. Blueboar (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Not sure how integrated into her name it was. Wasn't sure whether to retain periods in Dr(.), Sr(.), etc, as AFAIK not covered at MOS. kwami (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Majority or preponderance of sources?

I seemed to have noticed a possible discrepancy in this policy's wording. It says:

• Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article.

To me, the "most common" means the one used most often, i.e. a preponderance of reliable sources. Later it says:

• When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources

Here it says "significant majority" which is pretty self-explanation.

So, I would like some clarification. To determine an article's title, do we need a preponderance or majority? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do need a preponderance or a majority. :>)

OK, to be serious, I don't think that we have reached firm consensus on this issue, because everytime we started to discuss it, we kept getting side tracked by the endless 'self ID' debate. Personally, I think it is a bit of both, depending on how contentious the discussion over the title is. In a non-contentious discussion a simple preponderance may be enough to decide between two or three equally acceptable titles. But when things are contentious, I think you need more. How much more is a harder issue to quantify... after all, where does preponderance end and "significant majority" begin? Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, article titles are only normally determined this way. :>) Dmcq (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Darn, I was hoping for a straight, simple answer. Yes, it's a contentious issue. In fact, it might be the most controversial article on Wikipedia right now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess... Climatic Research Unit hacking incident? In my opinion it should be at "Climategate", as that is what is resoundingly used in the media and the most likely title to be searched for... but I do understand that there is a clear consensus against that title. This opposition leaves us inventing a "unique to Wikipedia" title, and all the POV debates that go along with doing so. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. It's a very frustrating situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was intimately involved in writing both this policy and WP:NPOV#Article titles, I know both the letter and more importantly the intent of the relevant policy statements. As such, I have left a comment at the article talk page outlining my views as to how both the letter and intent of our policies should be applied in this case. My call... if we follow both the letter and the intent of our policies, then that article should be titled "Climategate"... However, I also think that there is enough of a consensus against using "Climategate" that an invocation of WP:IAR would be justified. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not altogether happy with the change to the descriptive titles section. There is also a convention of just going by the most common name when an event is history but being more careful about neutral phrasing of titles for recent controversies. Dmcq (talk)

I am not that happy with my edit either (so feel free to revert)... what I am trying to grope for is some explanation of when to use an existing proper name and when to create a descriptive title. The point I am trying to make is that we should follow the sources... when there is already a widely used name for something (as demonstrated by usage in reliable sources), we should use that name as our title, even if it is considered non-neutral ... we should not make up a descriptive title to use instead. On the other hand, we do want names that are neutral if possible. The hard part is expressing where that line is... in the "Attorneygate" example, the name was coined and used... but not used widely enough.

As for the history vs. recent controversies distinction... when does something shift from being a "recent controversy" to being "history"? Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted myself... but we should think on this a bit further. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That Climategate example is a good test point. It probably is the more common name in newspapers but it would imply Wikipedia was taking a partisan view on a current controversy and lead to far worse trouble than what's there. It would be bad for the development of whkipedia as an encyclopaedia to insist on it when it can just be used in a redirect anyway and so I'd agree with IAR to not use it even if it was the policy here. Dmcq (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

But isn't the intent (and wording) of WP:NPOV about editorial neutrality? The world gets to decide and we simply report back what they've decided. So if the world adopts a partisan term as the common name, we're not supposed to overrule them. We're not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. There are plenty of POV article titles that are legit.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the question isn't it... is it partisan to use a term that has gained common usage? and conversely is there a point where it becomes partisan to not use it? I think both are answered with "yes"... What we need to figure out is where that point is. Not easy. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't the same as majority vote. The purpose of wikipedia is to develop an encyclopaedia and if the title of an article is deeply offensive to one side that will work against the aim of wikipedia. Putting in what might be the majority title as seen in newspapers would very easily lead to the rest of the article being rubbish and wikipedia itself getting into trouble by seen as partisan by people. Having a redirect from a contentious name to a neutral name and saying about the contentious name in the article gets round that problem. There is no need to encourage a battleground mentality where one side gets a majority vote and crushes the other. The problem with a title is that it can't show all sides of a controversy in due proportion and therefore what's said in NPOV can't be applied strictly to titles, the best that can be done is to show the majority title when that's not going to cxause too much trouble or otherwise choose something neutral. Dmcq (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, this hands every group who feels their Sacred Cause is being dissed by common English usage a veto; by this reasoning, we can't use Kiev lest we be contentious with the Ukrainian nationalists, and we can't have any title for the Republic of Macedonia at all: to the extremists on one side, any name other than Macedonia is unacceptable; to the extremists on the other side, anything which contains Macedonia is unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not every question has a clean answer, disputes between countries over names and territories are so common there's special rules covering most of them. And even then I think the rules have probably been broken for Derry, or should it be Londonderry or Derry/Londonderry or Stroke City. In any case there isn't a good neutral name one could use in such cases so this wouldn't apply. Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether a 'preponderance' or 'majority' is the right answer depends in part on how many names are used by the sources. If you have eleven names used each by just 5% of sources, and one name used by 45% of sources, you'd hardly want to skip the (by far) most common name simply because it wasn't used in 50.1% of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For an interesting look at how events are named... check out Naming the American Civil War. I note that in our article on that event, we do follow the preponderance of the sources and title the article on the event American Civil War, (and not any of the less used options) ... and note, there are people who strong opinion on this. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

At least there are good history books about it to refer to. I'd have thought the Arab-Isreali conflict would be more relevant. Part of it is old enough to have history books, should those bits still count as part of a current controversy or should one insist on using whatever seems most common in history books? And should one consider the history books may well be biased to the side which has more English speakers? Dmcq (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

should one consider the history books may well be biased to the side which has more English speakers? Good history books aren't; but on titles, this is essentially an objection to this English Wikipedia being anglophone, as it is intended to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A different area I can see problems arising is with trademark names becoming generic but the owner still defending their property. I don't think it is Wikipedia's place to go around destroying trademarks. Dmcq (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

How about: A descriptive title may be used for a currently unfolding topic within a controversy to ensure it reflects a neutral point of view. If the topic is historical rather than current then its title may be changed to the name that would otherwise be used even if the controversy is still current. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Subject Conventions

I have tweaked this language slightly, since it is being abused. If we had meant to say: every subject convention must prefer the most common English usage, we would have said so. The old wording is being used to imply that doctrine in two separate discussions, which means that it needs modification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

I don't object to a clarification, but the reason you gave is usually less important to the authors of those naming conventions than precision and accuracy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the convention. In some conventions, we are choosing among equally precise forms for consistency and conciseness; whether we say James I of England or James VI of Scotland and I of England and Ireland, there's still only one of him. But I've added precision, as relevant to some, but not all, Flora issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency March 2010

See Consistency 4 to 20 December 2009 and Consistency December 20

I am reverting PMA's changes because I think they are controversial, and should be discussed. I do not think that consistency should be used to justify ignoring the usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I, but the community's effective position is different from what we would like - I thought PMA's change led to a better description of the reality.--Kotniski (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Nor did I say anything to justify ignoring reliable sources; the conventions, however, do in fact choose among the usages in reliable sources. Both "Joshua tree" and Yucca brevifolia are found in reliable sources; the question of which to use does in fact depend on issues (the alleged greater precision of the Latin name; consistency in using Latin names) beyond which of the common forms is most common.

Note for Hesperian: I have intentionally chosen an example where the common name is coterminous with a botanical species; hence "alleged". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication that it is the wider communities position. Take one of the supporters of current wording in Flora, Hesperian, and then see his arguments on this page in #Policy or guideline? "My view is that policies state fundamental, non-negotiable facts of Wikipedia. Guidelines give merely guidance. I think the one fundamental fact of naming is that we follow usage in reliable sources; or rather, we follow usage in those reliable sources that share with us certain values, most importantly neutrality." Or his quote of PMA (who's edit I've reverted) "I can do no better than quote PMA above: No additional weight whatsoever.... If the sources are evenly split, go to our other considerations: ... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Hesperian 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)"

The problem is identified in WP:CONSENSUS

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right."

Which is a fair description of the problems with naming guidelines that do not conform with this policy, and I disagree with massaging this policy to accommodate guidelines that ignore the spirit of this policy because a "limited group of editors" have ownership of a guideline. It is the same problem that existed between WP:V and WP:RS before it was made explicit in WP:V that WP:V rules. -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Every naming guideline which I have ever seen complies with this policy. The limited groups which think otherwise are mostly clustered around a single issue, in which they wish the article to reflect their point of view, and will quote the first section of AT as though it were rules and not principles (at least those of its principles which support the world as they would wish it to be).

I except the group which consists of Philip Baird Shearer, which does indeed have a point in these discussions; I will do another draft, including an express mention that we are following reliable sources, and precision (as What recommends above). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Flora starts with "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following: [insert a rule set]" it does not start from the premise of using reliable sources to determine the name. Likewise WP:NCROY "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." Now I know the history of this page so I know why it developed the way it did (because common name used to often simply mean Google web hits) but since it has been agreed to us reliable sources to define the set of common names, much of the specific rules are redundant and both guidelines would be far better if they were simplified to work from reliable sources. Consistency is being used as a prop to support old decisions that were made in good faith but are now redundant. If both guidelines were deleted tomorrow morning, based on reliable sources and general guidelines like precision, I would guess that 95% of the current articles would still be at the same names. What they should be doing is starting from the premise of "Common names should be used for article titles where these are widely used and are unambiguous, BUT ... [use this guideline to decide on which choice of name to use as the article title]" which is how WP:NCASTRO a more recently developed guideline does it "Common names should be used for article names in preference to official names where these are widely used and are unambiguous." -- PBS (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip, I almost agree with you, but there are plenty out there who don't (see the people who vote "per WP:NCXXX" in naming discussions, without the slightest concern whether the name their pet convention gives is actually in common use). And I recall the last time we had an RfC on this matter, our side lost - more people were concerned with not seeing their favourite conventions compromised than with imposing a general common-name-based standard. If we're going to reach and demonstrate a new consensus, we need another widely publicized RfC, since this is an issue that concerns, well, every Wikipedia editor.--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the result of the previous RfC was a backlash against a reading of COMMONNAME as "use the lowest-common-denominator name, the name most familiar to the man in the street, without regard to register, precision, accuracy, what reliable sources use, what our audience would expect, or anything else". That was bloody ridiculous. The one advantage of that tedious saga was that it honed many minds, one or two of which were even capable of changing!; and eventually, much much later, we ended up with a much better policy. I for one would be willing to work/advocate to bring WT:NC (flora) more explicitly into line with "Follow usage in reliable sources"; whereas I will continue to oppose bringing it into line with "Use the lowest-common-denominator name". Though I can't speak for the good people at WT:FLORA, I would not anticipate much opposition from that quarter. The birds people have simply adopted the convention used by reliable sources in their field, so you won't see much opposition from them either. I really think the time may be ripe for is to start tilting the scales towards usage in reliable sources, away from internal consistency. Hesperian 06:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I might be led to agree with PBS, except for his revert-warring. As a matter of general policy, I think the five considerations we identify are all important; only PBS holds that we must use "most common names" at all costs in accuracy, consistency, and brevity.

However, that is not the issue here. This mindless reversion does not change between a text which says or means "use most common names" and one which doesn't; neither does. Both say that conventions do in fact recommend something else from time to time (sometimes or occasionally, in the different versions, and should generally be followed when they do. One merely says it in Hesperian's archest prose, and is liable to be misunderstood.

If PBS had a suggestion for a clearer wording which gives more weight to the principles he considers important, I would very likely accept it; if he had modified the new text, I would have left it alone. Bit I have not altered this policy, I have merely made clearer what it already said. Revert-warring to produce or maintain confusion is disruptive and unhelpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

<--(edit clash) PMA I am responding to your comment in the history of the article. I have explained why I think that the wording you want to replace is better than the wording with which you are replacing it. If I have not made it clear enough then I can explain in more detail. But have a look at WP:NCROY as Kotniski and I have altered the lead. A similar change to the other delinquent guidelines would solve the problem, and probably, make the whole paragraph redundant. -- PBS (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That change was contrary to the clear wording of the first section of this policy; it also misstated the scope of WP:NCNT. It is doubtless true that if we made PBS God-King, we would solve many problems, in the same sense that they were to be solved in A Man for All Seasons:

More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

But, fortunately, the position of God-King is already taken; and the current occupant has much less wish to cut down every policy in Wikipedia; so we will not see what winds will blow when one man's whim replaces consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

PMA why the personal attacks? I am reverting and not altering the wording because the first thing we should do is agree what changes need to be made. If I make changes that you disagree with then we have instability. Much better to revert to version that has been there for some months and then see if we can agree on some wording. "the most common form of the common name" what does that mean? I disagree with the wording "usually for the sake of precision, or of consistency with other titles in the same domain". If it were only for precision then we have a guideline for that, I have real problems with consistency as it is inherently conservative, and can easily clash with the usage in reliable sources, particularly if previous decisions have been made either ignoring the guidance given in the naming policy of guidelines, or were made using guidelines that gave advise contrary to the current policy's wording.

"This is particularly common in domains where the most common name in reliable sources is usually ambiguous," The use of "common" again is possibly not the best, and what does "domain" mean? But that is minor in comparison to "most common name in reliable sources is usually ambiguous" that is certainly not true for flora (as in most cases the scientific name is the only reliably sourced name).

The only thing that is controversial with nobility, and flora, is that they are (or were when you introduced the change) rule based and not sourced based, so when the rules produce a name that is not supported by the majority of reliable sources (and the general guidelines like precision and disambiguation for further refinement), people argue that the rule derived name in those guidelines should be ignored in favour of the name used in reliable sources. If the rule set is altered so that it expands and explains the use in reliable sources in those areas and give guidance when the results from reliable sources are ambiguous or otherwise not clear, then the guidelines are not controversial, and is the case with nearly all the guidelines with a few exceptions. It is the exceptional guidelines that are the controversial ones, and if they are modified then there will be no need for the paragraph that starts "This practice of using specialized names ...".

If those few guidelines are bought into line then the wording of this section becomes much simpler:

"Wikipedia has a number of naming guidelines relating to specific areas (as listed in the box at the top of this page) these give guidance on how to title articles in those areas by supplementing and explaining this policy page. Policies take precedence over guidelines, so in the case of any inconsistency between this page and a guideline, this policy page has priority."

-- PBS (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Except... we do say that when our various criteria conflict with each other editors should reach a consensus. In the case of the Flora project we have a conflict between common names (which people disagree over) and precision (everyone agrees on the scientific names). So... the editors on the Flora project reached a consensus to follow precision over commonality for Flora articles. In other words... consistency is already included in this policy... under the heading of consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In the category of mis-quotations, WP:GUIDES actually says, "Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally [emphasis added] takes precedence" -- and this page is one of the reasons that it says "normally" rather than "always". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The wording you call a mis-quote, is a quote strait from WP:V. --PBS (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that WP:V badly paraphrases the policy that it cites as its authority does not turn WP:V's imprecise paraphrase into the actual rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You miss my point... consistency isn't a matter of policy vs guideline precedence... because the policy itself says to reach a consensus when there is a conflict between criteria. The various topic guidelines are merely statements of what the consensus is, as it relates to articles within a given topic area. The guidelines don't over-rule the policy... they are based upon it. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency has been added to this guideline fairly recently and as you know I think the current wording is a mistake, both for the reasons I have given previously and because it allows the sort of argument you are putting forward to support delinquent guidelines. Even so I am not sure how you come to the conclusion "So... the editors on the Flora project reached a consensus to follow precision over commonality for Flora articles." as WP:NC (flora) says: "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis". So they not using "precision" but rules to determine the name. If they were consistent then every article would use the scientific names. Like the previous wording in WP:NCNT "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." (my emphasis and I am amazed no one has reverted back to it), it tries to impose a set of rules which while they approximate to the general naming policies result in different names in some cases and it is those few cases that are contentious. With a change to the guideline to give advise on how to interpret specific problems in that area, the name of most articles would remain the same and a few would be different (how do I know that? See the talk page I ran a test on a set of names that had been moved by one editor who used the flora rules exclusively, and compared that with just using policy). We should not be wording this policy document to make it easier for a "limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot to override community consensus on a wider scale". -- PBS (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip... you're wikilawyering ... The word "consistency" may be a relatively recent addition (I will have to see when exactly it was added)... but some sort of statement saying essentially the same thing (ie if there is a project guideline follow it) has been part of this page for a long time.

But to be honest, I don't really care about how long or briefly it has been in the policy. Consensus can change, so the only question we need to ask is: should it be in the policy? I am open on that issue, leaning towards "yes, it should".

As for the Flora articles, one last point... Have you considered that the Flora naming convention might be using the term "common name" with a different meaning than we do here... From my reading of that guideline, I suspect that they are using the term to mean: "the name used by non-specialists" (or "the name used by common people") as opposed to our meaning of: "the name most commonly found in reliable sources". In fact, there is an argument to be made that, since the vast majority of reliable botany texts will include the scientific name as well as one or more of various local non-scientific names used by common people .... then the scientific name actually is the most common name as found in reliable sources. If this is the case, then the Flora guideline is actually supporting WP:COMMONNAME when it says to use the scientific name. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in the framing of the flora naming convention, I can say that consistency was only a minor consideration. The main issue was a desire to use the nomenclature of our field; i.e. to follow usage in reliable sources. These priorities may not be inferrable from the written word of the policy, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I say again that I do not believe the flora people are as opposed (if at all) to following usage in reliable sources as they are to using the lowest-common-denominator name of the man in the street. Hesperian 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have put my money where my mouth is and overhauled the flora naming convention. If there are no objections, as I anticipate, then you can cross that off the list of "delinquent" guidelines. Hesperian 01:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've said recently in a recent and related discussion, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Consistency is here being used for essentially aesthetic reasons, rather than for the purpose for which this encyclopedia exists; that is, the reader. We don't name articles so that they all look "consistent"; rather, we name them in the way that is most beneficial for the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Right on... but the reader benefits from some consistency. Hesperian 01:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, in general consistency is helpful. But here it's being elevated into a primary goal - and, not incidentally, being used by PManderson to assist him in a different dispute. It's a terrible idea to modify policy so that editor aesthetics win out over reader-friendliness, and so that you can win a dispute, which is what is being done here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Albuquerque, New_Mexico#Move proposal? --PBS (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

On "It's a terrible idea to modify policy so that editor aesthetics win out over reader-friendliness", I'm pretty sure no-one here disagrees with you. There are two issues here:

1. Compared to the rest of us, PBS has a heightened sense of how wording can be abused, and tends to revert to the status quo if an edit isn't just right. His defense of such reverts is that the new version could be misused in such-and-such a way, but that does not mean that the author of the new version intended such a misuse.

   Precisely, "unforeseen consequences" (probably because I'm tempted to use it that way >:-> )-- PBS (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Though we here mostly agree that editor convenience should not trump reader-friendliness, it remains indubitable fact that naming conventions like our styles and titles convention have strong community support despite producing hideous titles whose only merits are consistency. We therefore have to temper our prescriptive approach to make sure this policy remains descriptive of what Wikipedians actually do.

Hesperian 01:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I drafted the following then events in the physical world got in the way but even though the conversion has moved on a bit and I have not yet read Hesperians changes I think it still worth posting:

Yes BB, the use of common name had to be defined with a footnote in the guideline Naming conventions (common names) which is now included in the policy see WP:COMMONNAME. "but some sort of statement saying essentially the same thing (ie if there is a project guideline follow it) has been part of this page for a long time". There was an ambiguity in the wording, it depends on whether one read this to be the naming conventions page and the others were guidelines to the conventions, or if the guidelines were also naming conventions. Consistency was introduced with these two separate edits here to the nutshell and here to the body on 7 September 2009. If you look before that date there was no mention of consistency in the policy. Which is not surprising because it is contrary to consensus can change. As far as I know there was no previous agreement for its introduction. It seems to me that the edits were based on this draft proposal which was largely drafted by Hesperian that I believe was drafted to justify the wording of the Flora guideline and a concept first introduced into conversations on the flora talk pages on 2 December 8 and is further developed as There is more than one priority here. So not it has not been in the Naming conventions for very long and as can be seen has been rejected by a number of other editors.

Hesperian apart from user:Born2cycle (who is not a very active editor at the moment) I don't think anyone who has contributed to the debate on flora in the last two years has seriously suggested that "lowest-common-denominator name of the man in the street" be used. That was a concern before PMA added reliable sources to this policy, but since then the rule based structure to flora is an impediment not a help to using reliable sources to determine the name of articles. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Much better Hesperian. With an edit you have fixed my major complain about WP:NC (flora) and in my opinion turned it from a controversial guideline, into a guideline which while I might quibble with the details no longer contradicts this policy. Well done and thank you. -- PBS (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. There is a case for taking it further, but you of all people will agree that it is necessary to move slowly and cautiously on these issues.

Well now, I believe the birds people, who, in mandating the use of standardised common name, are simply following the nomenclature of their field, might easily agree that they too are motivated by a desire to follow usage in reliable sources, rather than consistency-for-consistency's-sake. Little by little we are isolating the last of the "delinquents". :-) Hesperian 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that consistency has a value, but it's a recent (and obviously controversial) addition to the policy, and seems to be given undue weight here. Consistency is good, all other things being equal. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're preaching to the converted, Jayjg. We all agree on that. This dispute is about how prescriptive we should be, in the face of dreadful article titles like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Do we prescribe rules, and do we describe current practice? PBS leans more toward prescribing; PMA leans the other way. PMA makes a description more accurate, and PBS sees that him change the rules. PBS changes the rules back, and PMA seems him restore an inaccuracy. :-( Hesperian 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And that's policy: policies and guidelines describe.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But it may be useful to repeat to those who will listen: We are not discussing a change in the rules. This reversion did not change the substance of the guideline at all; it said before reversion that subject guidelines do not always use common names, and it said so afterwards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's what it looks like to me. Yet you must have had some reason for the edit. What was that? Hesperian 11:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Occasionally hedges too far; WP:FLORA quite often displaces the most common name. For example, consider North American trees: tulip tree, sugar maple, American sycamore are redirects, although the vernacular names are more common, much more recognizable, and equally precise. So with the other conventions. (I grant that this may depend on how you count; but often-consulted articles on well-known subjects should weigh more than stubs on algae. That's what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is all about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• On the other hand, it is useful to suggest, as the section now does, that we should choose among common names. Henry IV of England, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom are commonly used, even if they are not as common as the (usually ambiguous) shorter common forms. Nicholas Sarkozy of France is not - largely because in the foreseeable future he will cease to be of France (insofar as he is) and return to his normal status as party politician. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency is not an aesthetic principle; that's smoke and mirrors - any aesthetic benefit is welcome but incidental. Consistency serves the reader, in two (overlapping) ways: a reader should be able to tell where an article is likely to be. Even Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom serves this puirpose; once a reader has seen George II of the United Kingdom, and Henry IV of England, he will expect the article where it is.

The second purpose is that we should not set the reader puzzles, especially when the answer is not obvious. Look at Category:Heads of state of Canada, or of New Zealand; if she is moved, the reader will be entitled to wonder why all the rest are of the United Kingdom amd she isn't. Is some obscure political point being made? (And in fact it is; our Canadian monarchists wish to claim that she is Queen of Canada in a different sense than Victoria was.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I'm not a Canadian monarchist, so don't jump on me Pmanderson). Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada in a different sense to Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria did not reign over Canada with the title Queen of Canada (as QEII is) and nor did she reign with a separate Canadian Crown (as monarchs after the Statute of Westminster have), and she also did not reign over Canada as a fully independent nation (as Queen Elizabeth II has, following the Canadian Constitution Act 1982). Queen Victoria reigned over Canada first as several colonies of the British Empire, and following 1867 as a country which was part of the British Empire. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 06:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To the extent this argument is addressed at me, it is a red herring. I support leaving Liz where she is so long as we have the current royalty convention. But I think the current convention is a joke.[2] As such, comparison with George and Harry are not relevant. Hesperian 06:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never realised you were that much of a prescriptivist... But on PMA's "reader entitled to wonder" point - it is valid (so if it's right to move Liz, then it's probably also right to move at least her most immediate predecesssors), but it also works the other way - why do a few heads of state have "of somewhere" in their articles while others don't (not "Nicolas Sarkozy of France", or even "Akihito of Japan")? And why does this head of multiple states have just one of them mentioned in her title? A reader wondering these things might reasonably come to all sorts of wrong conclusions. This is what I mean (bottom of page) about attempts to force local consistency actually resulting in inconsistency pedia-wide.--Kotniski (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wow, I never realised you were that much of a prescriptivist..." Addressed at me? How so? Hesperian 12:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Just that you say you support leaving Liz where she is "as long as we have the convention" - implying you think we must follow the rules even if the rules tell us to do something silly. Sorry if I misunderstood.--Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the convention as 'rules'. I see it as an articulation of the consensus of the people who actually work on these royalty articles. I support leaving Liz where she is because I don't support a bunch of know-nothing know-it-all policy wonks who don't actually work on these royalty articles (i.e. us) claiming that we know better than those who do work on them. The people who actually work on these articles are the people whose opinions really matter. If I can convince them their convention sucks, great. If I cannot convince them, I will not overrule them. Essentially I'm endorsing their right to thumb their nose at our policy if they are really so sure that our policy is not what works best in the field. More or less the opposite of how you read it. (But there's still no need to apologise.) Hesperian 13:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<--You may not see them as rules but until this weeks change in the lead the lead clearly stated that they are rules: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem" (my emphasis). This is a general encyclopaedia and names should be those which the general public would most easily recognise. It is often the case that experts are not the best to judge these things as they are members of a group and group often use words and phrases which are impenetrable to the uninitiated, (just as we do with initials on this page (AT NPOV etc)). -- PBS (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

But we don't in fact do that as universally as PBS would make out. Liriodendron is not the most common name, much less the most common form - and yet it is consensus, and there is a mass of similar cases. (I join PBS in dissent, and will gladly consider adapting this page when consensus changes; but it hasn't.) Therefore, this policy should - as WP:GUIDES says - describe our actual practice, not figments of the handful of editors who discuss this page. If we do not in fact win the arguments, revert-warring to keep this page as a picture of a Wikipedia which never existed is playing Canute - and in the long run, discrediting those large portions of this page which are consensus. Therefore, I am stubbornly amending to say sometimes; it is harmful to have this page lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive disambiguation

One of the older rules in naming articles has been that we should not use pre-emptive disambiguation, presumably because it clashes with precision. However as far as I can tell WP:D does not prohibit it and WP:AT is silent on the issue -- or at least there is no explicit mention of it, and the current wording could be interpreted either way.

In the discussion Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Workshop and in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions the arguments were based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) which explicitly said, and still says

"When additional precision for disambiguation is not required, do not disambiguate the name in the title of the article"

However there are times when pre-emptive disambiguation saves editors a lot of time and effort and aids reader by making links less likely to be wrong. One example were this was adopted with with numerical military units, as one did not have to be a military historian to realise that many armies have or had a 10th Division. By making the name of division predictable "number, division (state)" it was possible for someone to write an article that mentioned a nation's 10th division and link to the appropriate name, even if at that time the article on that nations 10th division had not been written and so provide a red link to say one was needed.

Another place were we have pre-emptive disambiguation is on the article titles of places in the United States, this came about first of all because many of them were bot created, but it proved useful, firstly because the Americans are used to saying "town, state" as in Birmingham, Alabama, and it meant for other English speaking nations where that habit is less common, that there was less need to disambiguate article names for towns like Birmingham. As many US towns have been named after towns in other countries, this pre-emptive disambiguation has helped a large tranche of the Wikiepdia project names remain relatively stable and to change it now would have a large impact on Wikipedia article title throughout the the geographical area not just those places in United States region. I do think however it helped that an adjustment was made for the most famous couple of dozen US cities such as Boston that were move by acknowledging the usage of the AP Stylebook as an WP:IAR piece of common sense.

The wording in this draft proposal suggests

"However, in some fields where ambiguity is very common, article titles are pre-emptively disambiguated—that is, all articles are given a disambiguation suffix, whether ambiguous or not—in order to simplify linking."

I think this issue needs further discussion. Perhaps it is an area where there should be a general rule in the AT policy that pre-emptive disambiguation should not be used, but in some areas where ambiguity is very common, guidelines my advises pre-emptive disambiguation of article titles. What do others think? -- PBS (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I dislike pre-emptive disambiguation, but it is endemic in geographic articles. I've tried several times to get it overturned on Australian places, and gotten absolutely nowhere. This would be an very hard battle to win. I doubt it is worth fighting. Hesperian 10:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably so, but we could at least try. The sad thing is that "preemptive disambiguation" is justified by a desire for consistency, whereas in fact, since it causes the articles in those particular subject areas to be treated differently from those everywhere else in Wikipedia, it actually leads to inconsistency on a wider scale.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In Australia we have the further inconsistency of pre-disambiguating localities using the comma convention, but disambiguating geographic locations only when necessary, using the parentheses convention. This puts us in the situation of having to have Margaret River the town at Margaret River, Western Australia and Margaret River the river at Margaret River (Western Australia)! We are constantly having to stop newbs from pre-disambiguating localities, disambiguating geographic places using the comma convention, etcetera. However anyone could come up with something as messy as this in the name of consistency is beyond me. Yet it enjoys wide support, including many of the most outspoken and influential Australian editors. Hesperian 11:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an advantage of the American convention; we don't have that problem. If an American municipality is created, or changes name, we give it City, State automatically. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that we want to encourage or endorse predisambiguation under any circumstances. If editors choose to go that route, they should be invoking WP:IAR.

In medicine-related articles, we occasionally see inexperienced editors trying to pre-dab entirely unique names. They seem to think that "Exceedingly rare disease (genetic disease)" is a better name than just plain "Exceedingly rare disease". The usual argument is that a longer title means that people don't need to read the article to find out what it is. I wouldn't wish to have any support for that practice here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

When we anticipate that articles will need disambiguation, and the absence of present conflict is only a function of the incompleteness of the encyclopedia, it is only reasonable to put the article where it will eventually go anyway. This also offers the advantages of a consistent naming system, discussed in the section above. Where ambiguity is not anticipated, and there is no system, then it should be discouraged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But then you get inconsistency at the (inevitable) boundaries between those sets of articles which "have a system" (i.e. happened to get the attention of a particular systematizing group of editors at some point in Wikipedia's history) and sets which don't. So primary-topic US and Australian places have disambiguators where primary-topic European places don't; European monarchs have "of somewhere" added (no, this isn't common usage, at least not the way we do it) where Asian monarchs and European presidents don't. --Kotniski (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Try reading histories. It is not the most common usage, which would be simple name and Roman numeral, but that would be massively redundant; it is a common usage, normally employed when introducing a king from any coutnry the author doesn't happen to be discussing at the moment. (Except when a king is uniquely known by an epithet, and even then Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden is not unknown; the reader may need a reminder. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But "we anticipate that articles will need disambiguation" is not an accurate description of situations where predisambiguation is occurring. With respect to Australian geography, I've always felt I firmly debunked that notion here, but of course this place has no corporate memory, so no myth remains debunked for long. Hesperian 23:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And if this policy, or any policy, is being misapplied, have a word with the current offenders, and mention the problem here. I would have no objection to writing in conditions on when predabbing is to be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussing weight in criteria

To some degree, the above discussions all center on the concept of how much weight to give our different criteria (Recognizably, Precision, Consistency, etc) when titling an article. I think we are in agreement that WP:COMMONNAME (ie Recognizably) should be given the most weight, but does not "over rule" the others. I think we are in agreement that Consistency should be given the least weight (in that it can be over done). If I am correct, then perhaps we should express this concept of a difference in weight in the policy? Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No; COMMONNAME can certainly be overdone; every nationalist who can contrive a search result in which the Foolander name gets 27% and the Barlandish name 26% trots it out now. Adding a sentence which enshrines CN will only make this worse.

Nor does Recognizability require "the most common name"; logically, it requires a common name. Otherwise Liriodendron is indefensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that these criteria can be abused...and we do want to be careful how we phrase things to limit that abuse. I think we already at least hint that more weight should be given to Recognizably than on the other criteria (certainly we put more emphasis on it). I was just wondering if we should make it more explicit. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Commonly used vs. recognizable

I haven't been watch this guideline for a while; when did WP:COMMONNAME change from "most common used (in reliable sources)" to "best recognized"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It didn't. Hesperian 00:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

From #Deciding an article title

• Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Which should be the best basis for WP:COMMONNAME - which is still there as a separate paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Arthur's point. We use patella rather than kneecap because reliable sources favour "patella" over "kneecap". Full stop, end of story. It is not correct to say that we follow reliable sources as a means to a recognizable end: in this case that putative end has not been achieved. Hesperian 02:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't. There are other reliable sources than textbooks on anatomy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you would struggle to make a case that reliable sources favour kneecap over patella.

search term	Google Web	Google Books	Google Scholar
patella knee	707000	3600	63800
kneecap knee	537000	2000	2400
"knee cap"	304000	1568	4380

Patella holds its own in a web search, which consists of relatively more unreliable sources; it holds its own in a book search; and it wins hands down in a scholar search. I concede that many of the articles turned up by a scholar search do not share our values with respect to accessibility, and therefore that column needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. However, I do not have to show that patella wins here; you have to show that knee cap wins. If you cannot, then my point stands that reliable sources do not serve as a means of identifying the most recognizable name. Hesperian 02:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

All I need to say is the obvious; that they do not favor "patella" unless one uses a search biased towards those intended for specialists; as we are not. This policy has always favored the interests of a general audience over those of specialists, in a sentence which has been phased various ways. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The disputed sentence seems to assert that the name most commonly used in reliable sources is the name most likely to be recognised. You seem to be saying that this assertion is only true if we ignore sources that are "intended for specialists". This I will really concede. It follows that, one way or another, there is a problem with that sentence.

It is for this reason that I keep banging on about using reliable sources "that share our values". Usually I am talking about neutrality; here the value we need to check for is accessibility. Hesperian 03:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The first section is phrased to discuss an ideal situation. Ideally, things like this would not happen, and the most common name would be recognizable; but that's a diagnosis, not a defense. Let's try saying that recognizable names are common in reliable sources, leaving most for CommonName below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the idea that we base our titles on sources that "share our values" (whatever that means)... or that we should discount names intended for specialists. We need to consider all reliable English language sources when determining the most commonly used name... both specialist and non-specialist sources. Neutrality requires that we do so. That said... I have no problem with PMA's change. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you're right. "that share our values" is not so much wrong, as redundant: the values we expect them to share with us are the very values that make them reliable. With the exception of target audience, which is moot. Hesperian 14:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

On the specific example: Just counting hits at your favorite web search engine on "knee cap" is going to artificially inflate hits for the lay term because of confusion with knee-capping.

The overlap between these two names is significant: Many patient-oriented sources will provide both names, as seen, e.g., here.

The relevant specific naming convention explicitly prefers names used in "recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources" to terms used in sources that, e.g., have been dumbed down for children. (These things vary, of course, but the proper names for major human bones are typically taught to 12 year olds in most of America.)

I think it is appropriate to consider all reliable sources, but I also believe that it is appropriate to give more weight to the highest quality sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither the OED nor the sources it cites (for "knee-cap", Thomas Huxley and Bosanquet) have been dumbed down for children. Patella has always been a technical, learned, term; knee-cap replaced knee-pan in the middle nineteenth century (the last goes back to Golding's Elizabethan Ovid). One purpose of Recognizability is to keep us from pedantry - of using Latin technica for things which have a perfectly good English name. Have we gone to a feast of languages and stolen the scraps, or are we the English wikipedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, my point is that most of the sources that use "knee cap" exclusively (without even mentioning the formal name) aren't very good sources. OED, of course, mentions both, as do many good sources.

My brief survey indicates that there are more good sources that mention "patella" without mentioning "knee cap" than there are good sources that mention "knee cap" without mentioning "patella". Low-quality sources, on the other hand (e.g., personal blogs) are far more likely to use "knee cap" than "patella". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive titles again

I put in a shortened form of the change I proposed earlier for descriptive titles of:

A descriptive title may also be used for a currently unfolding controversy to ensure the article reflects a neutral point of view

and it was reverted with:

a descriptive title may also" Not always it depends, generally it is not true, and the word may can be taken to mean that permission is given

I don't understand the objection. The express purpose is to show that permission is give as this describes something that is done and passes Afd on a fairly regular basis. Dmcq (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest: "A neutral descriptive title may also be used for an article on a currently unfolding controversy or event, unless reliable sources indicate that there is a widely accepted proper name for the controversy or event (in which case that proper name should be used as the title)."

We want to impress upon our editors that we should never insert our own POV when naming our articles... That cuts both ways. We don't use a non-neutral title unless the sources do... but when they do, then so do we. Blueboar (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's almost the complete opposite of what happens and what I was saying. Using the example of Naming the American Civil War since it is not current to show the problem, during the war it would have been called either 'War of the Rebellion" or "War for Southern Independence' if Wikipedia was around at the time. The Northern version would probably have prevailed by a vote saying it was the more common name. The problem is that a title very often does not express both sides of a conflict and is inherently POV. Commonname in effect says we should choose a partisan name in such cases. This doesn't matter too much when the controversy is over and the history books say that is the common name, but for a topic which is currently unfolding doing this just leads to trouble on Wikipedia. This is to support NPOV in the article otherwise you get forks and edit wars before you even get to writing content in the article itself. What you wrote would disallow consensus about the title and stop development of the article. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

While the Civil War was raging, the majority of sources on both sides simply called it "the War". Better examples are the Boston Massacre or the Peterloo Massacre. These name were being routinely used within days of the events. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This policy should be compatible with NPOV#Article_titles which I just spotted again. This is referenced in this section and it covers what I was going on about but I missed the reference. I think it should be emphasised a bit better. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Your suggested wording said exactly the opposite of the NPOV policy as far as I can make out Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How so?... my suggested language is based on the last paragraph of NPOV#Article titles, which indicates that if there is a commonly used proper name for a topic we should use it... even if that proper name seems non-neutral. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I misread that. That flatly contradicts what this policy has with 'Attorneygate' or the decision not to use 'Climategate' plus a number of other decisions that have been decided the other way. I think there needs to be a bit of resolution of this point. Personally I think one could use Attorneygate now if it still is the common name but doing what it says for currently developing disputes generally leads to very grave trouble with the article. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a good argument that "Attorneygate" never caught on in enough sources for us to claim that there is a consensus of sources using it as a proper name... "Climategate" is currently a borderline situation... as more and more sources use it, that name is in the process of gaining a consensus usage as a proper name (the question being... where do we draw the line?). The point behind the final paragraph of NPOV#Article titles is that there comes a time when not using a name that has wide usage in the sources becomes a POV action on our part. We should not set our own feelings about what something should be called over rule what the sources say. Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The -gate names also have the disadvantage of being slangy. A respectable reference work can be expected to use formal names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

True (although as a suffix, it has started to appear in standard dictionaries)... but sometimes a name that started as slang becomes the formal name. "Jack the Ripper" started as a slang name coined by the London tabloid press, after all. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

BB has been putting forward my POV, which is the reason I have not replied. But two points, the first is we are not a paper encyclopaedia, so yes we may call something -gate if that is the name given to a political scandal in the short to medium term in reliable sources if in the longer term other "respectable reference work[s]" use other terms then we can move the page to the new title if that is appropriate. The second is given the information in NPOV and this thread, I am not convinced that any additional wording is needed in this policy. -- PBS (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't strike me as particularly complex. Neutrality is non-negotiable. There are two ways to achieve neutrality. If there is an accepted name for the topic, it is neutral to use it. If all names are biased (not in our opinion, but in their usage in reliable sources: each name is adopted by a particular party to reflect their POV; e.g. "right to live" versus "right to choose"), then we have to construct a neutral name ourselves. What Dmcq is driving at is that it is sometimes not easy, in the early stages of a controversial current event, to figure out whether, and to what extent, a name is accepted. This is true, but I think it is unnecessary and unwieldy to talk about controversial current events here.

I would advise some guidance along the lines of what I've just written: that we don't use biased names; that we assess bias by breadth of usage in reliable sources; and that if no names cut the mustard we will construct our own.

Hesperian 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is that simple, take for example Liancourt Rocks we chose a name used in reliable sources (and one where that the library of congress wanted to follow where we had led), but if a neutral name did not exist, I don't think we should have made up our own description, rather we should look at the quality of the sources that use the alternative terms and decide which of (in this case two) is the most commonly used in reliable sources (besides if the names have a bias, then usually at least some reliable sources will use a neutral term). If not then better to choose between them, eg use either at Burma or Myanmar than some neutral construct like "The country on the coast between Thailand and Bangladesh". -- PBS (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... "The Church with the Pope"... ? ... nah. Blueboar (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But there are neutral sources out there, right? Do they call it "The Church with the Pope"? No? They've adopted one of the "biased" names, for convenience, without intending any bias in doing so, right? Hesperian 04:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian, but suspect that PBS isn't wrong either, since in practice, there will (assuming it's a notable subject) always be neutral sources that have their own way of naming something. In other words, we shouldn't have to "construct our own name" (i.e. use a descriptive title) for things which have a name - there will always be neutral sources that we can follow. The only time we need to construct names is when the subject of the article is not some named thing, but some aspect of one or more named things that we find convenient to address on a separate page. In fact the example we currently give in the policy is patently wrong (at least in its phrasing) - "Attorneygate" (if used) would not be a "descriptive title", so the logic was not "uh-oh, descriptive title needed for this one, better make it neutral", it was "Attorneygate, don't like that name, let's use a descriptive title instead". But if Attorneygate was wrong because it was not used in neutral sources, then people should have at least looked to see what term the neutral sources did use instead, and use that, rather than making something up.--Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The descriptive title is only proper if biased sources use "Attorneygate" and neutral sources don't use a name at all. Theoretically this could occur, but in practice neutral sources will surely use a name. Either they will use "Attorneygate" too, or they will use some other name. The name used by neutral sources should be used regardless. Hesperian 09:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the "tsunami" example (assuming it's even valid - is "tidal wave" really still more common?) doesn't belong in that section either - it's nothing to do with descriptive titles. Some rearrangement is clearly required around that part of the page.--Kotniski (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Which I have made a first attempt at doing with my edits just now.--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have taken it a bit further... removing the attorneygate example completely... and creating a new sub-section on choosing between descriptive titles and common names... which incorporates what is stated at WP:NPOV#Article titles. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with including the material from WP:NPOV#Article titles, but I absolutely don't agree with taking out the "Attorneygate" example. We should at all costs avoid political nicknames as being both non-descriptive and non-neutral. On the non-descriptive side, -gate snowclones are completely uninformative about the subject matter. A case in point - what would you think the nickname "Spygate" was about? It's been applied to four different controversies in as many years. "Attorneygate" tells you merely that it's something to do with attorneys. Each of those nicknames requires some prior knowledge of what the underlying subject matter is. Someone who had never heard of the "Dismissal of US Attorneys controversy" could tell you from that article title, without reading the article, that it was a controversy about the dismissal of US Attorneys. "Attorneygate" by itself is meaningless unless you already know the context. Likewise "Betsygate", "Pinotgate" and any number of other -gates.

Second, the fundamental problem with -gate nicknames is that they are inherently non-neutral. Read -gate: "The suffix is used to embellish a noun or name to suggest the existence of a far-reaching scandal. As a CBC News Online column noted in 2001, the term may "suggest unethical behaviour and a cover-up"." Using such terminology biases an article from the outset - it adopts the terminology used by one side in a controversy. It often prejudges the outcome of a controversy, casting it as a "far-reaching scandal" even if it turns out to be nothing of the sort. The -gate suffix is a political weapon used by one side to tar the other with guilt by association (William Safire set the pattern by coining dozens of -gate terms for every minor controversy affecting Democrats). Removing this prohibition will result in endless fights between partisans. One of the reasons why it was adopted in the first place was to avoid such quarrels.

Third, removing this prohibition ignores the fact that the media has different goals from an encyclopedia. Headline writers and journalists like -gate nicknames because they're snappy, they cut down on word counts and (often) because the nickname advances the political goals of the media outlet. (For instance, The Sun came up with "Betsygate" to attack the wife of the British Conservative leader at a time when the newspaper was opposed to the Tories. Similarly Democrat outlets came up with "Attorneygate" to attack the Republicans.) We're meant to be neutral and we're not aiming for sensationalist headlines or article titles. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this "-gate" thing has become so hackneyed that people (or at least, neutral reliable people, which are the only ones we're suggesting following) now use it in a rather tongue-in-cheek way, and it doesn't imply any actual serious wrongdoing. As far as I'm concerned, if we reject a name like "Climategate" it's more because it's the wrong register than because it's not neutral. (Though I know a lot of people wouldn't agree with me on that.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's hackneyed and tiresomely unoriginal (the example of Spygate is a case in point) but that doesn't mean it doesn't have political impact. It's fundamentally about framing - creating a pattern of thought which, through repetition, becomes established as the common narrative. It's a standard approach for public relations professionals. I strongly suggest that you read Framing (social sciences)#Politics, which highlights the importance of terminology in shaping a narrative. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, you miss the point here. Your concerns would be valid if we were to create our own descriptive title containing "-gate" ... but that is not what we are talking about. Titles such as "Attorneygate", "Climategate", "Spygate", Betsygate etc. are not descriptive titles, they are proper names ... no different than Tea Pot Dome scandal, Boston massacre, Peterloo massacre, or Jack the Ripper. According to WP:NPOV#Article titles, when a name is used by a consensus of sources then we should use it. The only question is whether that name is used by a limited group, or by a consensus of sources.

WP:NPOV#Article titles makes it clear that it does not matter whether a proper name is non-neutral or contains non-neutral terms or suffixes... proper names are often non-neutral... the term "massacre" is non-neutral... so is the term "scandal"... so is the term "ripper". What matters is whether the name is used by a consensus of sources. If so we should use that name... if not, then we are free to use other names (or, to invent a descriptive title of our own).

Now, there is a good argument to be made that most "-gate" names have not achieved the level of acceptance and usage required to say that there is a consensus of sources. That is a valid argument. But to say that we should not use them because they are non-neutral is not a valid argument. To put it bluntly: Proper names do not need to be neutral.

To be honest, I don't particularly like the "-gate" suffix myself. I think it is way over used... but... the heart of NPOV is that we should not let our personal POV about things impact our writing. We should not impose our own POV over that of the sources. In other words... when a consensus of sources uses a "-gate" name, it is POV on our part to reject it. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The flaw in that logic is that -gate names are not proper names. They're fundamentally different from all of the other examples you mention. "Tea Pot Dome scandal" was a scandal about a place called Tea Pot Dome. The Boston and Peterloo massacres were mass killings at those places. Those are descriptive names. "Jack the Ripper" in a different category; it's a personal nickname coined by the person who claimed to be the infamous serial killer. -gate names are in a different category again; they're not proper names but neologisms coined to convey a specific political message. A scandal or a massacre is a generic thing. An Attorneygate or a Spygate is not. Adopting a political neologism is, as I've said above, fundamentally incompatible with NPOV's requirement for article titles "to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality", since it immediately adopts the narrative of one side in a controversy. As NPOV says, "Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints." Adopting one viewpoint at the outset is a fundamental contradiction of this principle. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But if neutral sources are adopting that narrative (which is the situation we're suggesting), then it's un-neutral of us to reject it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If neutral sources are adopting one side's narrative, then they're not neutral, are they? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be neutral... we do. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes one "side" is simply right. We can't make that judgement ourselves, but if unbiased reliable sources are consistently making it, then we can and should follow.--Kotniski (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I think a better way to put it would be: "independent sources". Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"The flaw in that logic is that -gate names are not proper names." I see some wriggling here ChrisO :-) What about the use of Whig party from the nickname that came about because of the Whiggamore Raid or the Tory party party named after some Irish terrorists freedom fighters pursued men? -- PBS (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

More on descriptive titles vs proper name titles

I want to expand on a distinction that I alluded to in the previous thread... the difference between our using a non-neutral term in a descriptive title and our using a non-neutral proper name.

To move us away from the "gate" debate... let's use examine another potentially non-neutral term... "massacre". We often get arguments over articles that are entitled "X massacre". There are a lot of problems with using this particular term in an article title... If no sources describes the event as a massacre then the title would violate NOR. A wikipedian has made the unsourced claim that the event was a massacre. If sources use the term "massacre" descriptively (ie if they describe the event as being a massacre) then the the use in a title is also descriptive. And it would be POV for a Wikipedian to create a non-neutral descriptive title. However, if a source uses the term as part of a name for the event (as is done with the Boston massacre), then the situation changes. It is not OR or POV to entitle an article on something with its proper name. And proper names do not need to be neutral. and if enough sources use it as a name, it becomes POV for us to reject it.

The key when it comes to titling articles is discerning who is applying the term, and whether it is being applied descriptively or as part of a name. If it is used descriptively, then we need to be neutral and not use it. If it is used as a name then we need to determine whether that name is common... and it is used by enough sources, we need to be neutral and use it ourselves. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd basically agree with that, though with a large dose of common sense; sometimes something really was a massacre, and reliable sources confirm that beyond reasonable doubt - in that situation there's nothing un-neutral in our using the word in our descriptive title.--Kotniski (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I was saying about currently unfolding controversy was trying for this sort of thing. After things die down then if a name with 'massacre' in it is still being used then it is the name and that's that. However during the event such names start off as being descriptive. I don't quite follow the last bit about proper names though. Is 'Attorneygate' descriptive or not? I would have thought it was someone's idea of a proper name. Dmcq (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Groan lets not go there! -- For the uninitiated please see the top boxes at Talk:List of events named massacres -- Kotniski "massacre" carries far too much POV to construct an NPOV name, even more so for any of the areas where ArbCom have ruled on national disputes, for this to be left to editorial judgement (just look at Drogheda still controversial after all these years). To bring it into an area where there is recent American and British involvement should: the Second Battle of Fallujah have been listed as a massacre in the old List of massacres as the Fallujah Massacre? The same thing happens with the use of the term terrorist attack. There are usually dozens of articles written with the term "terrorist" in the title. If it is the common name for the event then we should use it, but 99 times out of 100 within a short time event events like "9/11" do not end up with the word terrorist in the name in most reliable sources. It is because of this phenomenon (reliable sources tending to use non bias names), or over time the name looses it capacity to shock, that usually the common name in reliable sources is the best fit for Wikipedia articles and we do not need to consider NPOV most of the time. -- PBS (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that "-gates" are different... they are always coined as proper names. I suppose one could argue that if a Wikipedian were to coin a new and original "-gate" title for an article (one not used in sources) then he/she is using the suffix descriptively (ie describing the event as a "gate" type scandal)... such a title should, however, be challenged as being an OR neologism, so it does not really matter whether it is descriptive or not.

As for "Attorneygate", it certainly is used by the sources as a proper name. So, it does not matter whether "Attorneygate" is POV... what matters is whether it is a name that enjoys the "consensus of the sources"... is it used by enough sources that we can call it the accepted common name for the event? I would agree that this is doubtful. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. It is a nickname and a neologism, often in such cases coined by partisans to convey a specific political message and frame an issue in a particular way. Adopting such a nickname is a fundamental violation of NPOV's requirement to exhibit "the highest degree of neutrality". In this circumstance, blindly following what sources say is not the way forward, because Wikipedia has an additional requirement - that of neutrality - which sources do not. A media outlet using "Attorneygate" (or any other -gate nickname) is not under any obligation to present an issue neutrally. We are. That's the difference, which you haven't taken into account. And as I've said before, using -gate nicknames is also fundamentally non-descriptive - they tell you little or nothing about what the issue is.

You also need to consider the practical effects of removing this prohibition. -gate nicknames were deprecated in the first place because they provoked a huge amount of partisan fighting between editors. There was a lot of controversy about whether the dismissal of US attorneys controversy should be titled Attorneygate (which Democrats favoured) or whether the Killian documents controversy should be titled Rathergate (which Republicans favoured). Deprecating -gate nicknames had the effect of making both sides agree on a descriptive title that did not favour either side's POV. The -gate nicknames were still used for redirects, so nobody lost out. This practice has been in place, stable and working well for a long time. If it's not broken why change it and go back to the bad old days?

The bottom line is that you are proposing a major change to a long-standing, well-understood and effective approach, which will result in very disruptive wrangles across a range of articles. It needs much more exposure than it has had here and I don't think it's acceptable for one or two editors to decide such a change by themselves. At the very least, it needs to be specifically highlighted and discussed on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. I might be amenable to a solution that continued to deprecate -gate nicknames, but I strongly oppose any attempt to lift this deprecation. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I most definitely am proposing a major change to long standing policy... I am proposing that we change this policy so that it conforms with an even longer standing core policy... WP:NPOV. This isn't about the term Attorneygate. There are lots of reasons why "Attorneygate" should not be the title of that particular article (for example, you are absolutely correct when you note that "Attorneygate is a neologism... more importantly, it is a name that isn't widely used by a consensus of the sources)... but those are not the reasons discussed in the example. And the reason that is discussed in the example (that we should not use that term because the term is non-neutral) is incorrect. Because Attorneygate is a proper name, and because names can be non-neutral, the one question we don't ask is whether that name is neutral. Instead we ask other questions... especially "has the name been used by enough reliable sources for us to say that it has been adopted by a consensus of sources?" In the case of vast majority of the "-gate" names, the answer to that question is going to be "no". Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless it is proposed that NPOV section on naming is moved from the NPOV article into this one (and it has fairly recently been suggested on the talk page of NPOV), I suggest we keep a short description here of the contents of that section and place a {{main}} template at the top in this policy's section to Wikipedia:NPOV#Article titles so that the wording here an not be seen as contradiction the NPOV section. -- PBS (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not worried about the wording being slightly different... as long as the concepts being presented don't contradict. Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am, for the same reason as with WP:ATT, one must be given the lead and the other must defer, so that it is clear which is the definitive text. Without over time they will diverge and then who is to say which is the correct guidance without yards of text and man-hours of discussions? Just look at the fun and games over "Self-identifying names" which occur(red) because there was a divergence between this policy page and a guideline, so much more fun can be had and expected when the wording of polices diverge! -- PBS (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Further up this page I said

"[I]t makes no difference whether or not "Canadian navy" is a name or a description; so long as it is the best title according to our principles, we use it. It has previously been proposed here that we should never choose a descriptive title if a name is available. That is wrong. If a name is available but reliable sources consistently ignore it in favour of a particular descriptive phrase, then that descriptive phrase is what we should be using. You might argue that such a phrase thereby becomes a name, which only supports my assertion that the distinction is mostly spurious."

I stand by that. The distinction between name and description is spurious. If reliable sources consistently use a particular word or phrase to refer to a topic, then we do the same. If reliable sources have not settled on a particular word or phrase to refer to a topic, then we have to make something up ourselves. Arguing about whether a title is a description or a name is utterly pointless. Hesperian 23:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, because NPOV covers descriptive titles it dos not cover names. If it did then we would obviously immediately move American Revolutionary War to the American war of independence, not to mention (so I am) the more blatant Patriot (American Revolution) which manages bias in both name and disambiguation extension. -- PBS (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV covers our own construction of titles in cases where neutral reliable sources do not appear to have a name for the topic. See? I can say the same thing without introducing a spurious distinction. Hesperian 01:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If it were "neutral reliable sources" we would have to remove all national published sources (because they have or can be seen to have a national POV which is can be seen as not neutral) and then we would be able to have lots of descriptive names as there would be no sources at all for lots of subjects :-) We use reliable sources, and do not usually test then for their neutrality as that is a very slippery concept when it comes to deciding on the name of a subject. For example should all American sources that use the term "Patriot" be ignored in favour of the term used by English language sources such as Australian, as Australia did not take part in the conflict? Also what about a book first published in America and then published in Australia does that then go from being a biased source to a less biased source? -- PBS (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, "All editors and reliable sources have biases", we may as well give up and shut the site down! Or we could use a little more subtlety of mind than you're advocating here, and get along just fine. Hesperian 01:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And the proposal that the American Revolution be titled in "neutral" Australian English is a reductio ad absurdum of the whole argument here. Australian English is not neutral on this point - although it may well be divided; furthermore, we are agreed (WP:ENGVAR is one of the few genuine agreements in the MOS) not to use it for that article. The question whether the American Revolution (or, for that matter, the Glorious Revolution) is a revolution in the sense which has prevailed since 1789 is the sort of question that we are not supposed to ask; if, outside Wikipedia, it produces a change of name, we should observe the change, and act accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding duplication with WP:NPOV

Since we're rapidly reaching a situation where we have sections on two different pages striving to say exactly the same thing, I've made a suggestion on what to do about it at WT:NPOV#Neutrality and article titles. Please comment there.--Kotniski (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad titles

User:B9 hummingbird hovering has been creating many articles with titles such as Sixfold Expanse of Samantabhadra (kun tu bzang po klong drug). I have asked him/her to stop, based on my interpretation of WP:Article titles and WP:MoS. S/he has refused. Who is correct? Abductive (reasoning) 08:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A1 applies. I will support you if it needs to go to AfD. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It may come to that. Abductive (reasoning) 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that it does not matter what you call an article if it is not a notable topic; if it has not been the subject of reliable, third party sources then it is questionable whether (a) the topic exists at all (other than in the minds of a few individuals) and, even if it does, (b) whether it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as as standalone topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive titles and neutrality

Blueboar & Kotniski what do you think were the advantages to the changes you made that ChrisO reversed? ChrisO what did you see as the detrimental changes in their collective edits? -- PBS (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments below. Specifically, the removal of the deprecation of polemical nicknames for current affairs. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

POV and proper names

If Chris O is correct in his assertion that proper names must be neutral... we should change the titles of the following:

• Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot should be retitled: Al Franken's opinion about Rush Limbaugh
• Parliament of Whores should be retitled: P. J. O'Rourke's view of Washington DC

Also...

• Reign of Terror should be retitled: Controversy over arrest and guillotining of many people in France (1793 - 1794)
• World Series should be retitled: Major League Baseball Championship Series

I would go on... but that would be pointy. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the focus of my concern. I was specifically expressing a concern at your attempt to remove the long-standing deprecation of -gate nicknames. The examples you give are nothing to do with that. The first two are book titles (so of course we use those), the third is a long-standing historical name and the fourth is a long-standing common name. They do not present problems because they are (in the first two instances) the names of particular works and (in the latter two instances) long-standing names about which there is no controversy. What I am specifically focusing on is the use of polemical nicknames about current affairs. Avoiding these in article titles has been a convention on Wikipedia since well before you became an editor. I suggest that the solution we should be looking at is some approach which specifically tackles that issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT the section on descriptive names was added with this very big edit on 9 October 2009. As I have said elsewhere I do not think that replicating wording between two policies is a good idea, as it leads to problems over which is that authentic text ..., however that is a different problem from the on you are describing here ChrisO, if this section did not exist before October last year where was the prohibition on using -gate prior to that? -- PBS (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's been around for a lot longer than that. The edit you highlight is a merge from somewhere else. The confusion is understandable - this page has been hacked around so much in the last 6 months that it's hard to tell where all the pieces of it came from. The deprecation of -gate names was originally part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which was merged into this page, and it's been a standing convention since at least the start of 2006. I'm not sure when it was codified into policy - I believe some time around 2006-07 - but it's certainly been standing practice for over four years. I recall discussions at the start of 2006 about the White House travel office controversy, which some editors wanted to call Travelgate, but which was given a neutral descriptive title in accordance with what was already a well-established convention even at that early date. (And a good thing too; "Travelgate" was later reused for a South African political controversy.) As I said, the issue is specifically about the use of polemical nicknames for current (or in that particular case, recent) events. This is distinct from Blueboar's contention that "proper names must be neutral". We're talking about a much more narrowly defined issue - specifically that of polemical nicknames. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is page is not a merge with Wikipedia:Naming conventions is was a rename through a page move. The edit on the 9 October (which I have highlighted above) merged several guidelines into this policy page, in principle I supported that merge, but in the merge Kotniski made an editorial judgement on what to include. He missed out the "-gate guidance" which was in Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Until this week I had not thought through the implication of moving a guidance recommendation into this policy page and the potential conflict with NPOV, and until you raised it I don't think anyone who regularly edits this page had considered the "-gate guidance". For ease of use here is what Naming conflict said:

Descriptive names

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming

Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

For instance, a recent political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the George W. Bush administration. The article discussing the controversy is, however, at the more neutrally worded title Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject.

See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.

--PBS (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down the original text. Note that "Attorneygate" broke in December 2006. The use of "recent controversy" clearly indicates that the codification of the -gate deprecation came shortly afterwards, probably in response to a dispute over the title of Dismissal of US Attorneys controversy. As I said, though, it was already common practice well before then. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, you continue to miss the point: "-gate" is not a descriptive title, it is a Proper Name (yes, nicknames are also Proper Names... for example Bill is a nickname for William). Proper names are not required to be neutral.... that goes for proper names that end in "-gate" just as much as any other proper name. To be used as a Wikipedia title, a non-neutral proper name requires usage by a consensus of sources. As I said before, the vast majority of events named "-gate" will not pass that test... but... if and when one does, then it becomes POV on your part to reject it. If you wish to use a "-gate" suffix name as an example of this limitation, that is fine... at least we would be doing so for the right reason. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (by the way... did anyone else pick up on the Paradox that a "long standing" example discusses something that is objectionable because it is apparently a "neologism".) Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Using "Attorneygate" as an example

I am removing this again... I am not arguing that "Attorneygate" is an acceptable title (I agree that it isn't), but the stated reasons for why it is unacceptable are flawed. "Attorneygate" is unacceptable because that name is not used in enough reliable sources that discuss the event, not because a Wikipedia editor invented a more neutral descriptive title. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What is meant by 'enough' in this context? Are we talking about absolute majorities or a majority compared to other names? Anyway what other names are there for it? I'm not quite certain what the meaning of majority is in the description of proper names. Also I'd be perfectly happy with a name like Attorneygate now if it was mentioned in post event accounts. The big problem I see is not how much a name is accepted but how much it isn't accepted which is quite a different thing, more like a blackball vote. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the choice of article title can't be made via a process of Blackballing, else it may never be possible to agree on an appropriate title at all. Also, arguing that one title is better than another is simply going to lead to a very long thread, with competing claims backed up by competing sources, and it will never be clear what consensus has been reached from such a thread.
The way I would imagine such a dispute to be resolved, in say a mediation case, is to line up, side by side, the top 10 sources (or even just the to 2 or 3 sources) supporting one article title or another, and making a comparison of the sources in terms of quality criteria listed in WP:GNG, i.e. the level signficant coverage, the reliability of the sources. Only by making such a direct comparison can an informed view be reached. So for example, if there are 100 trivial mentions of ""Attorneygate", that would not compare as well with, say, a well written academic journal that supports an alternative term to "Attorneygate" (if one exists). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the standard should be "acceptance" and not "rejection". WP:NPOV uses the phrase "a consensus of reliable sources" when addressing the issue of non-neutral names. To me a "consensus" implies more than a simple majority (whether absolute or comparative) but not necessarily unanimity.

I think that the comparison to how we determine notability is apt... to some extent, the question we are determining is not only whether the topic is notable, but also whether it is notable by a particular name. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think 'Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy' is a notable name compared to 'Attorneyate'! In fact I don't think notability has an awful lot to do with titles at all, a good name is nice but there's other important things that come first. Developing an article on the topic is far more important for instance than causing a holy war with the title. Especially when one can use redirects to handle the queries on other names. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not comparative (just as "other stuff exists" is not a valid rational for saying that X is or is not notable... saying "other names exist" is not a valid rational for saying that a particular name is or is not notable). But I think Dmcq is right... while you can make an analogy to notability, that analogy is flawed enough that we should not pursue it. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, where a topic is newly emerging, then notability is going to be a factor, because there is not much source material to work from, other than news reports, whose headlines are not always the best source of titles, as headlines change as the story develops. If I was a mediator in this case, I would tend to look to weightier publications, such as published books[3] or academic reviewed journals[4], neither of which mention "Attorneygate" at all. I am not familiar with the sources in this article, and so there may be evidence going the other way, but I think article titles and notability are closely aligned, since well established topics tend to provide a wider range of sources in support of one (or two) titles.
Although the secondary sources do not seem to be of direct help either, they seem to indirectly indicate those primary sources that are important. The journal that I have just cited itself cites the Congressional hearings on the "Dismissals of U.S. Attorneys" and "U.S. Attorney Controversy" which do suggest that these titles are favoured by external sources, and do mark as useful reference point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

None of which negates my original point... we have gotten off track by focusing on the term "Attorneygate". The paragraph that I object to is worded as follows:

• Occasionally a neutral descriptive title may be used even when one or more names for the topic exist, if it is felt that none of those names is neutral. For instance, a political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the government, but the article title is the more neutrally worded Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. (bolding mine)

There are lots of valid reason to not use "Attorneygate". There are valid reasons to use the current descriptive title. But the fact that "Attorneygate" is not neutral isn't a valid reason. That is where the example goes wrong. The reason why the example is flawed is that... IF, at some point in the future, the name "Attorneygate" gains acceptance by a consensus of reliable sources... then true neutrality will require us to change the title of the article... despite the fact that the name is non-neutral. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not at some point in the future significant coverage from reliable secondary sources may lead to a change in title of the article, I cannot judge without a crystall ball. However, since most of the coverage of the scandal hangs around the Congressional Hearings, and those hearings have already been the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, then the current title appears to me to have externally validated, and is unlikely to change any time soon. I think this example, if it does not prove, it certainly does illustrate, how consensus on article titles is arrived at: by examining all of the relevant sources, and comparing them to see which ones carry more weight in terms of significant coverage and the reliability of sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Would Climategate be a better example? I'm a bit loath to bring it up as it is still current. Dmcq (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No... I would also object to using "climategate" as an example... and for the same reasons. Whether we should title that article "Climategate" or not depends primarily on whether "Climategate" is used by a consensus of reliable sources or not. I would agree that the quality of those reliable sources is also something to consider. But the one thing that is not a factor is whether the name is neutral or non-neutral.

It isn't the specific example that is the problem... any example would be a problem... the problem lies in the underlying statement, not the example. Blueboar (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Any example with "gate" on the end would not be a good example, as it sounds like a temporary journalistic invention, and I think most editors would tend take such titles with a pinch of salt. Choosing an article title using trivial coverage is never going to make good guidance.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a question of finding a good example... there is no good example. This is because the entire paragraph was flawed. The policy is better without it. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed wording about descriptive titles and neutrality

For anyone who's interested, I'm trying to produce a proposed simultaneous rewording for the titles section of WP:NPOV and the descriptive titles/neutrality section of this page. Assistance/comments welcome at User:Kotniski/Neu.--Kotniski (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your draft for AT is acceptable... your draft for NPOV is not. Explained on the draft's talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I must agree. I see no advantage to changing - and (whether or not you mean it) sentences from your draft will be used against established names like Boston massacre. Use of Gdanzig as an example is not at all wise; there is no consensus, merely a stalemate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained at the talk page of the draft, I'm happy for the Boston massacre examples to be put back (I'm not suggesting that my current wording is in any way perfect). I don't think that what I've said about Gdanzig is at all controversial except possibly among extremists (and given that the subject is neutrality, any good example we give is going to be contested by extremists), but again, I'm not insisting on using any particular example or wording.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this has swung too much back towards "use the most common name even if it is grossly biased". I accept the arguments above in favour of that position. But on the other hand, the fact remains that "attorneygate" is not used because some people feel the name is spin. I don't think any of you guys really believe that "attorneygate" was rejected because it was "felt not to have become sufficiently established in good sources"; so why would we say it? Hesperian 10:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the only legitimate reason (that would be accepted by the community at large if the matter were up to them apart from a small minority with a POV). Good sources", of course, is open to a high degree of interpretation.--Kotniski (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to talk about our own opinions at this stage rather than try and speak for others, otherwise we might start assuming things that aren't true. The business about a consensus of sources doesn' really work for Climategate and I think the distinction between names and descriptions is a bit artificial, all titles are supposed to be descriptive enough for identification, just saying B-52 for instance isn't really good enough. Possibly the article should be called Climategate eventually as opposed to Attorneygate where not enough people used that but it is still better to call it the long name for the mooment like the AfDs say. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why in the world does "this business about a consensus of sources" not work for Climategate (or any other "-gate")? Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am mistified too, and I find it hard to take Hesperian's statement at face value. The term's provenance in terms of who penned it first and in what context has not been established. It might be cited by journalists, but who actually coined the phrase and in what context is not known. This appears to be a classic example of WP:NEO. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters who coined the term or what the context was... what matters is if enough other (reliable) sources pick up on the term and use it. When does a neologism stop being a neologism? Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It does, because the article is about a neologism, not just mentioning it. To quote WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms: To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term.
I realise that this whole area of neologism is one that is already dealt with, so if we give any examples, we may wish to point any related example at WP:NEO. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, no... to be an article about a neologism, the article would have to be about the word "climategate" (its etymology, meaning and usage)... I would agree that we should not have an article about the word "climategate", just as we should not have an article on the word "Massacre" (instead that page is a dab page with a link to Wiktionary.)

However... as a potential article title the term redirects to an article "about" an event... or rather a series of events that form a controversy (specifically the Climatic Research Unit email controversy). Thus, the article is not "about" a neologism.... it is an article about an event, that might be titled with a neologism.

Thus, the section of WP:NEO that comes closest to applying is Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles titled with neologisms... which states: In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

However, if "a consensus of sources" use the term, this would indicate that there is an accepted short-hand term that exists. So the advice given in that section would no longer apply. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it does, for would how a complete lack of coverage about the term "Climategate" itself indicate that it is the correct title? Another way of looking at this is that an article about a neologism is also an article about a topic where a neologism is used as the title. I think this is a good example of a non-neutral label: even when it is used widely, the title "Climategate" conveys to readers an implied viewpoint: that this is a scandal similar to Watergate. Neologisms are a fancy way of labeling topics as one group of people see it. The fact that a term is accepted by one group but not another is a good indicator that it may not be neutral. That is why significant coverage about the title would be needed to establish its credentials as a widely recognised title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see your logic - if calling it Climategate implies something, and reliable (which in this case means, among other things, unbiased) sources are calling it Climategate, then whatever it is that Climategate implies is being implied by those reliable sources, and therefore it's right and proper for us to imply it as well.--Kotniski (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My reading of NPOV#Article titles is that that non-neutral names that have been used by a consensus of sources should be considered an exception to WP:LABEL. The word "massacre" in Boston Massacre is, after all, also a non-neutral label... It too was coined to convey to the reader an implied viewpoint. The name was initially coined by partisan political pamphleteers trying to promote outrage among their fellow colonists.

If we were holding this discussion back in the early 1770s, I am sure we would be having heated debates about how to title the article on that event. Editors would be (correctly in my view) arguing that the article should be titled with the more neutral descriptive title of "Boston, Massachusetts shootings controversy". After all, it really is POV to call an event where only five people were killed a massacre"

Yet, today we don't use a neutral descriptive title for the article on that event. Instead we use a non-neutral name. So what changed? What makes a name that would have been unacceptable then now acceptable. What makes the name Boston massacre acceptable today? My answer is... the fact that the non-neutral name has been accepted and used by a consensus of reliable sources.

My point is that "X-gate" is no different than "X-massacre". We can argue about whether a non-neutral name has been accepted by a consensus of sources, but not about what to do once it has been accepted. If and when it has been accepted, we should use it. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Kotniski that we can just accept a title because it is the subject of reliable source; how can a mere mention of the term "Climategate" itself indicate that it is the correct title? I think we need more evidence than trivial coverage to accept the term. Using Blueboar's example for a moment, whether a massacre involves 5 or 500 people, its never going to be a neutral term, but I think it is widely accepted in circumstances that involve the slaughter of defenceless civilians, and acceptance of the term spans several hundred years and many unfortunate events that have been the subject of significant coverage to justify its use. Although adding "gate" to an word is not so serious, nonetheless any claim that a scandal was on a par with Watergate, even if it were only indirectly implied in the title (and then only weakly or in jest), would require the same sort of coverage as the documentation of a massacre. I just don't see the depth of coverage in the Climategate article that documents the affair on a par with Watergate in accordance with WP:REDFLAG; I think any reasonable editor would have have to take this neologism with a pinch of salt. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that if "climategate" (like "Boston massacre") is used in conjunction with the event for a long enough time, then it would be acceptable? (in other words, is it your view that acceptability of non-neutral names is based on time of usage and not volume of usage?) If so, this gets back to a question I raised earlier... when is a neologism no longer a neologism? A year? Five years? 100 years? Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, if has not been the subject of significant coverage. Yes, if, in accordance with WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms, it "has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable, then a fairly newly coined term may be the simplest and most natural way to refer to the concept. In this case that newly coined term may be the best title for the article, provided the use of the term is verifiable". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that a "-gate" term might be an acceptable title for an article, if that term has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable. You simply don't think the specific term "Climategate" has met that standard. Fine. In essence we agree: Article titles are not determined by whether a name is neutral or non-neutral, but by a different standard. One that has to do with usage/coverage in reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'd only add that there's a reason a non-neutral title is okay: we've got an entire article to discuss how all sides view the term. If there's no discussion, then a non-neutral title isn't okay with me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the WikiJargon from this section.

"Neutral" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, as defined in WP:NPOV. Whatever the sources say is "WP:Neutral", even if some people consider the sources' choice of terms to be patently offensive or flat wrong. Using this word to describe anything else is confusing to editors and IMO should be strictly avoided in Wikipedia's advice pages.

What this section describes is not WP:Neutrality (=following the sources, even if you think the sources are leading us right over the cliff); in fact, it is entirely about what to do when you don't follow the sources. This page recommends that when you don't follow the sources, that you choose titles that are inoffensive and non-judgmental.

English has perfectly good words for those concepts that don't conflict with the WikiJargon; let's use those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. From the above comment, I was inclined to disagree. But on reviewing the diff, WhatamIdoing is absolutely right here. Hesperian 22:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with the post. Non-judgmentalism writing in a neutral tone, is part of WP:NPOV; it's one of the distinctions between WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. But the edit is right; we need not make that point here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No objections from me. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So are we saying 'Boston Massacre' is a common name not a description because it has entered general usage, 'Climategate' is a common name but..., actually I can't see why Climategate isn't preferred according to the current wording. It isn't like tidal wave compared to tsunami. Dmcq (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

With the current wording we no longer directly address this question ... the argument is that "Climategate", as a name, has not (yet) met the threshold that would require us to use it over some other title (such as a descriptive title).

We seem to have some disagreement on what that threshold is, and how to word it... but at least we seem have agreed that a threshold exists. That is a step in the right direction, as it moves us closer to being in sync with WP:NPOV#Article titles. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In which case, I think the threshold for using a non-neutral name has to be higher quality evidence that the term is widely accpeted than would normally be the case, the direct analogy being WP:REDFLAG in relation to extraordinary claims or strongly held opinions. Perhaps some guideance along the lines of the following would be appropriate:

If topic has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable, then the term that is simplest and most direct way of refering to the concept in the article title should be apparent. In this case that newly coined term may be the best title for the article, provided the use of the term is verifiable.

However, were the title is not neutral, highly novel (e.g. a neologism) or is likely to be challenged for other reason, then high-quality sources are required to demonstrate that a particular article title is acceptable to the world at large.

I realise that contemporary subjects, higly novel and controversial titles are likey to have been coined by just one person, rather than to have emerged from multiple sources. To demonstrate that such a article title is being used my more than one source or group of related sources, I think the burden of evidence needs to be capable of withstand the accusation that the choice of title is purely personal or partisan. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... this might be OK... Suppose we do add it, how would editors interpret it? Let's think of some examples of non-neutral names and see whether they would or would not qualify as an article title under this language. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral title

One possibly non-neutral article title: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. here's been some discussion about that at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#The Wiki Title Violates Neutrality. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... good point... so do we have high quality sources that we can use to justify that title? (I hope so). Blueboar (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this example sort of proves my point, that high quality sources are needed to justify an article title that is likely to be challenged. Just because numerous sources use the term "conspiracy" is not sufficient reason to use this term in the title, becasue there is no proof that a conspiracy exists. Conspiracy theorists would say "of course a conspiracy exists", but I don't think we should allow article titles to be based on hearsay, even if that hearsay is cited by reliable soruces.
It seems to me that there has to proof that a conspiracy actually exists for the title to stick; unfounded allegations are merely labels which contain opinions that may not have any real justification. It seems to me that the title is sensationalist rather than substantive, and that the coverage of term consiracy is trival, rather than significant: there needs to be a source that specifically identifies the "conspiracy theories" as a subject of significant coverage per se to justify the title. Putting lots of trivial coverage together, and claim "here is your proof that conspiracy theories exist" is an example of stretching the facts to fit the theory. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For me, the use of the term "conspiracy theories" implies that the conspiracies do not actually exist. But I agree it's not a good title - it ought to use a word like "controversy" or "claims".--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to question whether that is actually an example of a non-neutral title... if someone theorizes that a conspiracy exists, that theory is (by definition) a "conspiracy theory". No? Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The topic of that particular article is not theorization about whether or not a conspiracy exists. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct... it says that the theories do exist, and that these theories claim that a conspiracy exists ... hence they are "Conspiracy theories". Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And the lead sentence of the article says, "Conspiracy theories about the citizenship of Barack Obama are ideas that reject the legitimacy of President Obama's citizenship and his eligibility to be President of the United States." I don't see how this article title can be seen in any way other than as implicitly passing judgment on the subject of such ideas.

Actually, I'm doubtful that many, if any, of those holding such ideas claim that a conspiracy exists. The only such conspiracies I've seen purported have been offered up as strawmen. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think the title is a good example of WP:LABEL: an article title that "conveys to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral".
The significant coverage given to real world events suggests that the subject matter of this article is that Barack Obama's nationality has been the subject of legal challenge which have failed. There is lots of trivial coverage to show that rebuttle of those challenges has resulted in accusations from various plaintiffs that their legal actions failed becuase there is a conspiracy. If this article title where to go to meditiation, I am sure the significant coverage would be given more weight that the trivial coverage, even if the sources for both came from reliable secondary sources. It seems to me that undue weight has been given to trivial coverage when the choice of title was made, despite the fact that it is Barack Obama's nationality or his eligabilty for high office that is the real subject matter of this article.

I think that the following amendment to the section on descriptive titles might be helpful:

Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. If a title is not neutral, or is highly novel (e.g. a neologism), or is likely to be challenged for any other reason, then that is a redflag that should prompt editors to examine the sources for their choice of article title.

Descriptive titles should only be used where directly supported by significant coverage from reliable sources that demonstrate undue weight is not being given to a particular viewpoint. If such sources are not available, then that title should be discarded in favour of a neutral title, even if it is less recognizable.

For example, the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law that have not yet been proven in a court of law. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.

I think this makes the point that neutrality is the baseline we start from, in line with WP:NPOV. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, To look at the same issue in a less political article... take a look at Masonic conspiracy theories. The term seems to be used quite neutrally there. In fact the article goes out of its way not to pass judgment on these theories, either for or against. Blueboar (talk)

Good point and good example. Perhaps the content of the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, if that title is retained, would be beter if rewritten similarly. As the content is currently written, that title strkes me as inappropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly... I think it is impossible to make sweeping statement about the use of non-neutral terms in titles. Non-neutral terms in titles need to be examined on a case by case basis... because sometimes they are actually used neutrally (as in the case of "Boston massacre" or in the case of "Masonic conspiracy theories"), and sometimes they are not. When they are not used neutrally, sometimes (I will even say most of the time) the best solution is to change the title... but sometimes (occasionally) the best solution is to rewrite and refocus the article in a way that makes the title neutral (this would be my choice with the Obama citizenship article). Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So in fact there would be no artificial distinction between common name and descriptive title, just we should choose the best most straightforward description people will recognize which don't conflict badly with NPOV and normally a common name will be fine for that? Dmcq (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... I am not sure if I agree with that... I do see a distinction between names and descriptive phrases, but how the distinction impacts our titling is less clear. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq in the sense that, if the title is going to be challenged, we look to the sources that can provide the best form of external justification for that choice, whether it is acommon name or a descriptive title. We have to look at each case individually, but there must be some source of external validation we can agree on in order to reach the most neutral title, even if that is the least worst one. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that... as long as it is understood that the most neutral title may not always seem neutral (in that it may include non-neutral terms or names). Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Which takes precedence: Common name or Manual of Style?

Recently I proposed a move at Talk:Inland Empire–Orange County Line#Move to "Inland Empire-Orange County Line". The issue was whether the common name policy took precedence over the Manual of Style on dashes and hyphens. (I couldn't find a guideline on this, if there is one, I apologise.) Only one person commented, so I thought I would bring this to a larger audience to see what the consensus is. Thoughts? --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 16:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict... the name without a hyphen (as per MOS) would still reflect the common name. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TorriTorri, is the primary issue whether Wikipedia has to follow the punctuation used by sloppy sources, by using a hyphen instead of the (typographically correct) en-dash? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've come across this issue recently on articles like Ireland 400–800. The n-dash is typographically better and so I would recommend it as the title. (Blueboar, remember what we choose as a title not only affects the name of an article but also how that name is set typographically.) (Struck: I had mistakenly read Blueboar's comment. --RA (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

However, it is nearly impossible to type an n-dash on a standard keyboard and so difficult for user to link to from other articles - and for those of use who like to navigate via the URL bar, etc.. For that reason, I would recommend using the n-dash in the title but creating a redirect page from the hyphenated name. Incorrectly formatted links in other articles can be fixed later on. --RA (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thus possibly creating the first clear and deliberate violation of the opaque "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors" injunction that I've ever encountered.

Shall we assume that you're using Windoze? An en dash is no harder to produce on a Mac than a capital letter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors" - If you read over my post again you might see that my suggestion was to use an n-dash as the article title. A redirect is a practical consideration. Please see the current copy of this policy, particularly the part that reads:

Provide redirects to non-keyboard characters: If use of diacritics (accent marks) is in accordance with the English-language name, or other characters not present on standard keyboards are used, such as dashes, provide a redirect from the equivalent title using standard English-language keyboard characters.

With respect to your question, I contribute using a variety of systems. Mainly a Mac but also Windows and various Linux distros. It's not as easy to create a n-dash on them all as it is on a Mac (and even at that, far from every user of a Mac knows how to). 86.95% of visitors to this website use Windows. I (and you?) are among the mere 7.08% that use OS X. See stats. --RA (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to the liberal use of redirects, especially for sane purposes like this.

I am, however, always on the lookout for something that justifies, or at least explains, the existence of this "readers over editors" (which I think should be removed). Placing the page at the typographically wrong title for the purpose of making it easier for editors to type the link to the article would be, I believe, the first example I've found (in a year-long search) of a title choice that would violate this rule... except, of course, that nobody is proposing actually doing this: TorriTorri seems to be interested only in following the sources' sloppy typography, not in making links easier for editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We should use what is used in reliable sources it is not to us to make editorial judgement on what is or is not "sloppy typography". Next it will be argued that we should use funny foreign squiggles even if reliable sources do not as it is only for reasons of "sloppy typography" that they do not (lets not go there again). One reason for the existence of "readers over editors" is for the alphabetical sorting of articles in categories. Some editors given the choice would use names that give a uniformed look to categories. for example I have seen people object to British generals having titles included in their article names not because it is not common in sources etc (which might be true) but because it messes up the look of categories like Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal (United States). Another is for whether there should be a comma in names like Henry Vane the Younger because if it is Henry Vane, the Younger it can be used more easily as a dab with the pipe trick. The is also consistency, clearly for editors consistency is easier than accurately following the use in sources. If an editor knows that names always use a certain format like "Name, ordinal of country" it is easier to know what to link to even if the name is not commonly used in reliable sources. One example was the original position of the article Gustavus Adolphus see Talk:Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. Another is the use of scientific names for flora, it saves editors the bother of working out if the scientific name is the most recognisable name for the general public if the rule is always use the scientific name. -- PBS (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But in principle I think that this policy trumps the MOS on article names while the MOS trumps this policy on how to present content. However there is of course a symbiotic relationship and the two should be phrased is such a way that they do not contradict each other. -- PBS (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PBS's statement of principle is correct. In this case, there is also a WP:IAR argument; the MOS position on endashes is not documentable, and is not English. Following it harms the encyclpedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Who are we to decide what is "sloppy" or not? As PBS stated, this would lead to a slippery slope of deciding when to follow reliable sources and when not to. We should stick what is verifiable. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 01:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but no. Shall we determine whether sources place a single or a double space after a period, and copy that typographic style, too? If the source uses a serif font, must we? Shall we require the use of proportional fonts, if that's what the source uses? Or put company names in all capital letters, because that's what the company does in its press releases?

Or is it only the tiny size difference between a hyphen and an en dash that worries you?

PMA, I'm not sure what "not documentable" means. Do you mean that you've never seen any of the many style guides and other sources that explain this use (e.g., [5], the sources in the mainspace article en dash, and dozens more), or that you haven't seen any documentation that the contents of the MOS are, in fact, the contents of the MOS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The MOS and concerns over WP:V (or common name) are distinct matters.

We have a certain house style, that is our MOS. Other publications have their own house style, that is their MOS. It most cases, their's will be different to ours in one way or another. When we use look to other publications, we look to them for verification not to emulate their house style. We have our own.

The question of whether MOS trumps verifiability misses the point of both. The two address two different things. In this case, another publication uses a hyphen were were use a n-dash. Verifiability does not mean that we have to transplant their house style into our publication. The important thing for verifiability and common name is that we can verify that another publication calls it the "Inland Empire-Orange County Line". They use an hyphen in that circumstance. We wish them well in doing so. We use an n-dash in that circumstance. So, we use an n-dash. See MOS:ENDASH and the section on "En dashes in page names". --RA (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS is not a house style; in our language, a house style would be those points of usage on which there is genuine consensus. These are few enough, but does MOS mention any of them? yet it spends great amounts of verbiage on points on which there is no consensus.

Those who wish to follow MOS, instead of Modern English Usage, CMS, or the Oxford Guide to Style are free to do so; they will advertise their judgment, their taste, and their learning in so doing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Judgment? Taste? Learning?... on Wikipedia?? (the unfortunate part about being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is that just about anyone does). Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

RA and WhatamIdoing make good points which I did not realise. Pmanderson, is that a personal attack? --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 06:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No; it may qualify as an impersonal attack. MOS is a disaster, and its semi-literate pedantry on endashes is one of its silliest decisions; those who support and enforce those decisions - as inconvenient to readers as it is to editors - should be ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, Pmanderson, but it is certainly incivil. Saying the MOS should be ignored is one thing. Saying other editors should be ignored is another. --RA (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what they are saying. For a parallel, editors who insisted that Symmes' Hole appear in articles on global warming or ozone depletion should be ignored, insofar as they so argue; the same editors, on other subjects, should be listened to - perhaps with a grain of salt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

PMA, are you aware that Chicago requires the use of en dashes in wikt:open compounds (i.e., the case under discussion)? (See section 6.85, ISBN 9780226104034.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Poorly phrased (open compounds, by definition, have no internal punctuation at all) but correct for compounding open compounds. If ENDASH said that, and pointed out that the hyphen suggests a triple compound of Inland, Empire Orange, and County, it would be unexceptionable: but it doesn't, and is useless. Mindless citation of a mistaken rule, even in those cases where it happens to be right, is not helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what CMS says. Please actually go look it up instead of assuming that your memory is accurate. CMS gives "a hospital–nursing home connection" and "a nursing home–home care policy" as examples. It does not spam multiple hyphens or dashes into these phrases, and it would not accept "Inland–Empire–Orange–County Line". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are disagreeing with something I did not say; I never suggested multiple dashes, which was Fowler's solution to the problem. It would be legitimate British English, but need not be ours. (And I was looking at CMS 6.85 as I typed.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on federal courthouse naming conventions at WP:USCJ

Please feel free to weigh in on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Request for comment on federal courthouse naming conventions. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

New proposal for Tibetan naming conventions

I have put up a new set of proposed Tibetan naming conventions. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan)#New naming convention proposal. Your comments and feedback are requested.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Great (sarcasm) - another special topic area naming convention... just what we need. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

titles of articles with non-Latin alphabets

Should .бг, السعودية. and امارات. be moved to their Latin transliterations? bogdan (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Better than a simple transliteration... they should be moved to a suitable English language translation. This is the English version of Wikipedia after all. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why there is his desperate need to give things wrong names when we have redirection to cope with searches. Dmcq (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Move 'em to their punycode and let God sort 'em out. Seriously, taking one as an example, the possibilities include:

1. امارات.
2. .emirat
3. emirat
4. United Arab Emirates internationalized country-code Top-Level Domain
5. .xn--mgbaam7a8h

I hope we can all agree that each of these (except probably #3, which maybe not in this case but for some country will need a disambiguation) is a suitable redirect. The question becomes, which should be the article name? I think it is unlikely that internationalized ccTLDs will soon have commonly used names in English, so we should ask which of these will be most useful to readers. I've changed my mind at least once while composing this reply, but at this point I'd go for #4.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that I see what this is about... I would say the title should be ".emirat". This would conform with the titles of other articles on domains for other countries (see, for example .uk and .us) Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually it wouldn't; the other articles use the actual domain name, not a transliteration.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, then what would someone type to send an email to or view a website at these domains using an a standard English lettering "qwerty" keyboard? THAT is what we should use. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

On a Latin keyboard, you would use option 5, .xn--mgbaam7a8h to send an email or view a site. Also without Arabic fonts installed this is what a user would see in the address bar too. I strongly prefer using this to using .emirat, as this actually works as a substitute (using .emirat in a URL would not work), and it avoids issues inherent in transliteration from Arabic (whether to indicate vowel length, choice of vowel etc) Knepflerle (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Common names"

Following a thread at WT:MOS, I'd propose to add something like that:

Nowadays, many major modern English dictionaries, such as the OED for British English and Webster's Dictionary for American English, have a corpus-based descriptive approach, so they are typically reliable sources for actual English usage.

― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC) [amended at 15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)]

Could you give an example? Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Webster's was criticized for this very reason. See this about the OED. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, but two changes and some additions are necessary: 1) In fact, all major modern English dictionaries are descriptive instead of prescriptive and all use their own and/or a public text corpus. 2) We want to use American Heritage and Merriam-Webster (not the historical or generic term Webster's) as examples of modern US descriptive dictionaries.

Blueboar, what do you mean with an example? An example of a word, a dictionary, a modern dictionary's compilation method, or what? Here's a summary of how modern dictionaries are made that indirectly explains why we should seriously discourage use of search engine testing instead of encouraging it, as we do now.

We should specifically discourage search engine testing if the terms are in dictionaries. It's symptomatic of WP and the rampant OR that goes on in determining terminology in editing WP that both WP:UCN and Wikipedia:Search engine test don't even mention dictionaries and their databases! Those pages should specifically warn that the increasingly popular attitude/habit of dictionary bashing is almost always a sign of linguistic ignorance and not a sign that the bashers know more than the dictionaries. No amount of Googling by almost all WP editors can compete with the data and knowledge that is the basis of a dictionary entry.

I'm not saying we should ban reliable sources that criticise and correct dictionary entries, on the contrary, but we should ban the rampant habit of deleting information in WP that is well sourced from dictionaries as "irrelevant" because dictionaries supposedly describe "only" general English whereas the WP editor(s) consider themselves experts on what the "correct" term/spelling X is for which "most people use the incorrect term/spelling Y". We could even allow the results of very well carried out search engine testing as additions to information quoted from dictionaries to indicate possible new trends not yet recorded in dictionaries, but these are almost always blatant OR that is not tolerated on WP in anything except what most English speakers incorrectly think they are experts on - their mother tongue.

Specifically we should ban the kind of linguistic prescriptivism that is normal and even correct in writing a reference work for a profession. We should encourage use of the terms used by the experts but specifically ban the removal of explanations of colloquial terms used by most people instead of the precise terms used by experts. --Espoo (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this addition:

Nowadays, all major modern English dictionaries have a corpus-based descriptive approach, so they are typically reliable sources for actual English usage. WP should not try to be a collection of hundreds of professional reference works. We should try to make even difficult topics accessible to lay readers, and we should not ignore widespread English usage that is different from that in our dialect of English or different from that of specialists.

Professional reference works can say "don't use the term X" and "always use Y instead of Z" and can even simply not mention non-specialist usage, but WP should not do these things. Major dictionaries are usually very good guides to the meanings, spelling, and use of words - especially when these are different in different kinds of English - because modern English dictionaries base their definitions on large databases documenting actual use in "a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time".

--Espoo (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we say this without the fancy terms like "corpus" and "descriptive approach" (which could confuse new editors). Remember... "Keep it simple" is always best. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was at the end of my suggestion :-) How about this?:

Nowadays, all major modern English dictionaries base their definitions on large databases documenting actual use in "a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time"ref note, so they are typically reliable sources for actual English usage and no longer prescribe usage. We should refrain from trying to be lexicographers and doing search engine tests because this is usually WP:OR

Wikipedia should not try to be a collection of hundreds of professional reference works. We should try to make even difficult topics accessible to lay readers, and we should not ignore widespread English usage that is different from that in our dialect of English or different from that of specialists. Professional reference works can say "don't use the term X" and "always use Y instead of Z" and can even simply not mention non-specialist usage, but Wikipedia should not do these things. --Espoo (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the OR is that those dictionaries don't do what we often need: say which is the most common word for a thing. That X and Y and Z are all words for the same thing is not uncommon - but we need one of them to be an article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if several words are common enough (e.g. bicycle and bike), I'd say the title can be either one, and once it's somewhere it shouldn't be changed without a good reason, rather than trying to determine which one is more common; matter of fact, I can't think of any reliable way of doing that (there's evidence that the number of Google hits can be bogus, especially with large hit numbers[6]). A. di M. (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree... sometimes it just comes down to common sense and consensus among editors at the article (and we already say that, if needed, defer to consensus)... I would argue for "Bicycle" over "Bike" as being more precise (since "Bike" can refer to a motorcycle)... but if the consensus was against me I would not argue very hard. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a range of topics that do not appear in dictionaries for all sorts of different reasons. Not infrequently terms differ between dictionaries. There are also other considerations like national variations etc. Also what is meant by "Nowadays, many major modern English dictionaries", the OED has always used that method as have all good dictionaries or do you suggest that in the past dictionaries used to make up meanings for words? What is the justification for saying "British English" for the OED, as it records usage throughout the English speaking world? For these reasons I oppose the addition of this sentence. -- PBS (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Murray is a relatively late dictionary-maker (and the First Edition is overwhelmingly drawn from British sources); Johnson had no qualms about suppressing a sense, or a word, of which he disapproved; this continued, notoriously, up through Webster's Second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To give an example of where dictionary usage was decided to be inadequate was the renaming of the article Romani people (it had been at Roma people). The OED entry had not been updated since 1989 and it was shown in the debate over the name that among more recent reliable sources (such as those used in the article) that Romani was more commonly used than that of Romany the OED preferred spelling. There is also another point here the meaning given to the word Gipsy differs between the OED and that under English law, in such cases is the dictionary meaning (that Gipsy is another word of Romani) of the legal definitions more authoritative? This is not something that a simple rule in this policy can cover because it comes down to editorial judgement. -- PBS (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is another reason why this policy says that when the various criteria don't mesh perfectly... you discuss the matter on the talk page and go with consensus. We can outline what to do for the typical article, but no matter what we write, there are going to be articles that simply don't fit our "rules". Do we need to make this clearer... that there are going to be times when the "rules" don't work, and that when that happens it is OK. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Common names when an organization has recently changed its name

An amusement park in California recently changed its name from Pharaoh's Lost Kingdom to Pharaoh's Adventure Park. Currently the article is at the second title; however, most reliable sources refer to it by the first, since the name change occurred very recently. Which name should be used for the article title? --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Common sense applies... I assume that there is at least one reliable source that can verify the name change? I doubt anyone would be likely to object to changing the title of the article to match the new name of the amusement park (the old title should become a redirect). The exception would be an article in which maintaining historic context is important... If the park has changed ownership and management with the name change, we might wish to have two articles... one on the old park (using the old name as a title) and one for the new park (using the new name as the title). Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Some quick googling turned up [7], [8], [9], and other sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Typically for subjects which still exist, a name change will ultimately be reflected in more sources as time passes. As such, I don't think there's a problem using the new name. An argument can be made the other way in cases where there's reason to believe that the old name will, for whatever reason, always be more popular. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Adopting this attitude is edging towards endorsing "official" names as primary in general, which is certainly not what we are aiming for. Care should be taken in ensuring that the new name is actually adopted widely before we adopt it, per WP:V. There's no rush to change a page's title, as it can be changed in the blink of an eye once it is clear that usage has changed. A redirect from the new title should be created immediately, however.

RfC: Is "Criticism of foo" an article title to be avoided?

There has been a rather in-depth conversation regarding criticism articles on the village pump, which is linked here. In short, some users feel that these types of articles have inherent problems with WP:NPOV and other policies. Other editors feel that they are useful ways to comply with expectations of WP:Summary style. There is a long standing essay, WP:CRITICISM, which discusses some of the concerns of dedicated criticism sections.

Are these types of articles considered harmful and discouraged except in circumstances where they are obviously appropriate? Should WP:Article titles discourage the creation of articles with these titles? SDY (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly support the avoidance of the word "Criticism" and changing it to something like Critical analysis or the like because while "criticism" can mean opinions either way on a given topic, the word is nearly always taken in common terms to be negative facets and draw in undesirable OR, POV, and other issues that magnify the problem. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)