Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Template:DS Courtesy Notice

Proposed COMMONNAME subsection

I propose adding a new subsection to COMMONNAME. Certain policies and guidelines are perceived to conflict with COMMONNAME, and an explanation of these cases can help to avoid time-wasting RMs. I've drawn up a draft at User:BDD/COMMONNAME exceptions, which I invite you to visit and potentially edit. In particular, I only know of two such policies or guidelines, so additions are welcome. You may also indicate your support for, or opposition to, this initiative, either in this section or on the draft's talk page. --BDD (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Edit: I've had this page deleted, but its content is reproduced in the collapsible box farther down in this section. --BDD (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: BDD has moved the now-redlinked draft to a collapse-box in this thread, below. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 07:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the examples you give ("Boise, Idaho vs Boise" and "Myocardial infarction vs Heart attack") are exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME... with both the city and the medical event, there are lots of sources that would support either potential title... enough that neither potential title is significantly more common than the other. We turn to the project convention because we don't have a clear COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the question I'm asking is not whether they are the common name—just whether they could be perceived as such. Since Boise redirects to Boise, Idaho, it's reasonable to assume it could be moved to just Boise; since heart attack is a much more commonly used phrase, it reasonable to assume it should be the article title (cf. Talk:Myocardial infarction#Article move, from earlier this month). My intention is to head off RMs like that. But if you have better examples, by all means, add them. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. All criteria are considered and weighed in title determinations. Consistency with other similar titles (a.k.a. following project-specific naming conventions) is just one of those criteria, and does not automatically trump others like recognizability, naturalness (i.e., common name) and conciseness. The two examples are terrible, because Boise, Idaho is an abomination (IMHO) and Myocardial infarction is about precision. If you want to head off RMs, support the following guidance.

  With very few if any exceptions, all cases of [[A]] redirects to [[A (B)]] or [[C]] redirects to [[C, D]] should be non-controversial grounds for moving:

[[A (B)]] → [[A]]

[[C, D]] → [[C]]

--Born2cycle (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My question is: why would we want to try to "head off" RMs? I see nothing wrong with suggesting that an article would be better if given a different title. This policy helps us to achieve consensus as to the best title amunst a choice of various potential titles, not to mandate what a given title "must" be. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actual improvements is one thing. But I'm talking about heading off RMs in cases where either title is ultimately fine (neither is "better"). Some people advocate for simply not participating in such discussions, or always supporting the status quo. I favor supporting policy and guidelines that reduces the incidence of such cases, by making the rules less ambiguous. Fewer exceptions. Hence my above suggestion. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective, there is only one firm rule here... 2) Titles are determined by consensus. All the rest is guidance to help us achieve consensus. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but even within that framework we can come up with guidance supported by consensus that increases or reduces ambiguity and the incidence of controversial cases. I mean, pure consensus with no guidance would be indistinguishable from a panoply of JLI/JDLI arguments. So the whole point of having guidance is to reduce controversy and pointless JLI/JDLI argumentation. This goal can be met to varying degrees depending on what policies and guidelines we choose and how ambiguous we make them. The less ambiguous and less conflicting we make the rules, the less controversy there will be. That's why I advocate for project-specific rules that minimize (ideally eliminate) conflict with our general criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Any particular algorithm, such as the one above that's claimed as "should be non-controversial grounds for moving", is going to make lots of bad calls, compared to the considered judgement of editors who can trade off the various criteria that are there to be considered. The theory that "the whole point of having guidance is to reduce controversy" seems to me to be highly suspect, and B2C's efforts guided by this theory seem to stoke more controversy than they settle. Hard and fast rules that force editors into choosing the most concise and ambiguous title are what he has been pushing for 5 years now; how about we try backing off from that, and let titles be chosen by editors instead of by algorithms? Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Algorithms make title determinations deterministically. In contrast, when these decisions are left to "the considered judgement of editors", often if not usually apparently reasonable arguments (mostly rationalizations of JDLI positions) can be made for both sides, and true consensus is never reached. Coin tossing, using an unfair coin weighted to favor the status quo, would produce results similar to what we see from "the considered judgement of editors". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that description of how it works, but even if it did work that way, I would be okay with it, since consistency is a legitimate, indeed very important, goal. NB: If someone's spouts off with the "hobgoblin" quote, I'm going to embarrass you, because that quote does not at all mean what you think it does, as I've demonstrated several times in previous discussions like this at AT/NC and MOS pages. Short version: Emerson is not only usually misquoted (he wrote of "a foolish consistency", not "consistency" generally); he was writing about avoidance of habitual patterns in life that limit one's human potential, and, as applied to writing, being free to change his mind over time, between publications; he was absolutely not writing in opposition to using consistent style and logic from one page to the next in the same publication! The same is true of virtually all similar quotations by other writers oft quoted by people who oppose (for whatever irrational reason) MOS being reasonably consistent from article to article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 07:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle, while I agree with some points you made below, on this you are coming across as giving excessive weight to conciseness (or concision, if you prefer) above all other considerations. I think you'll continue to find you don't have much support in that quest. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 07:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – I think the problem is that WP:COMMONNAME is often cited, instead of the WP:CRITERIA that it's supposed to support. It is not well written, as it seems to take control, with over-narrow wording like "it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used...", when it should be talking about recognizability and precision. If we rephrase it a bit, then City, State and Myocardial infarction will not be exceptions, just cases where the chosen name may not necessarily be the most common. It starts out OK with "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural" – but it might be more clear to say something like "The title of an article is typically chosen from the most common names..." with the same reason. Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That's just advocating more rules loosening and less determinism, which creates more fodder for pointless disagreements. With few exceptions, when the most common name for a topic is available, it is the title for that article's topic. That's a fact that can be verified with any significant number of clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM, and it needs to remain clearly stated in policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Born, a lot of editors feel that less determinism and more acceptance of disagreement is a good thing. It's why WP:RM exists... so editors can discuss the (often subtle) nuances that exist between different titles and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; many of us have supported looser rules and less determinism, so that edtors can actually weigh the various criteria. Much of the conflict that we see in naming is driven by the extremists, who believe that "excess precision" means anything beyond the most concise possible title, or that recognizability has no real value except to people already familiar with the topic, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that some editors want looser rules, less determinism and (thus) less agreement and more arguing. But why? To what end? We're not talking about cases where one title is clearly better than another (there is little to argue about in those cases). We're talking only about cases where, frankly, either title is fine, in terms of serving our readers. What is the point in make such cases more controversial rather than less controversial? What good comes from that? To anyone? Besides those of us love debate for the sake of debate (I'm not going to deny that obvious inclination in myself, but I recognize that's no excuse for loosening the rules, less determinism and more ultimately pointless disagreement and debating). For me, it's not pointless, because the point is to reduce the incidence of that kind of nonsense. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your inference that looser rules and less determinism would lead to more arguing seems highly suspect, especially since so much of the arguing is driven by you trying to tighten up the rules and implement algorithmic naming. We aren't going to go for that, you've probably noticed by now. Dicklyon (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I measure my achievements in the area of titles in terms of titles that were controversial in the past, and are now stable. Getting there sometimes means one RM discussion. In other cases it takes years. But in the end it's about title predictability, consistency and stability. It is for me. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should have 'WP:NOT#BOOLEAN' as a part of WP:NOT.

"I understand that some editors want looser rules, less determinism and (thus) less agreement and more arguing. But why? To what end? We're not talking about cases where one title is clearly better than another (there is little to argue about in those cases)". Firstly, the above statement itself is a fallacy because it causally links the lower determinism with less agreement or more argumentation; it also implies that the level of determinism at present is free from arguments. Secondly, the "end" is to put an end to the delusion that there is only one of [subject] when they are in fact abundant number of them although an article has yet to be created for the others. The acceptance and adoption of the naming convention for US cities (ie [name, state]) is a reflection of the real world where there are several Plains or Redwoods, for example. That principle should be enlarged so that the user won't have to even have to hover over a link, let alone to click one, to know that the subject is or isn't what they were looking for. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, the underlying common theme of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DISAMBIGUATION and concision and recognizability is that distinguishing a given article's topic from other uses not covered in WP, and making a topic recognizable to readers unfamiliar with that topic from the title itself, are not purposes of WP article titles. Adding these purposes to WP article titles would indicate we should be using a different title for probably the majority of our titles. This can be quickly verified by making a few clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM which will immediately reveal any number of titles for which the topic is not recognizable to anyone not familiar with the topic (e.g., Beerzerveld, Live at Short's 2005, John H. Long, Osbald of Northumbria, Lex Manilia), or by recognizing that the existence of any dab page at name (disambiguation), like Redwood (disambiguation), indicates the existence of an article (or redirect to an article) at name (like Redwood) which is ambiguous with the other uses of name listed on the dab page, not to mention those that may not be covered on WP.

Repurposing titles like this leads to conflicts because now we have conflicting purposes for titles, and, thus, ostensibly reasonable arguments based on recognized purposes for different titles for the same article. Continuing to go down that path will necessarily lead to more conflict, disagreement and debate. To what end?

The examples of Plains or Redwoods are irrelevant because both are dab pages listing multiple uses on WP of those names on WP respectively. There is little debate about titles of articles like that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is probably going nowhere. I'll leave my draft below for anyone who wants to run with it. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Draft content
Exceptions Some Wikipedia policies and guidelines posit stricter naming conventions; these conventions should be followed even when they would result in less common or concise titles. The following are examples of such titles and their relevant policy or guideline: Boise, Idaho (not Boise, per WP:USPLACE) Myocardial infarction (not Heart attack, per MOS:MED)

• That said, add WP:NCROY to the list of policies and guidelines that can conflict with COMMONNAME. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That was true in the past and the inconsistency has been largely rectified over the years. For those monarchs that "have a name by which they are clearly most commonly known ... and which identifies them unambiguously... this name is usually chosen as the article title". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Not necessary. Our two choices are always common use and official name, and it can certainly be argued that Boise, Idaho, is a form of official name, as is Myocardial infarction. Along with official, we include scientific name, as well as technical name. Apteva (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Two comments here... 1) I have a problem with saying that there is always a choice between the official name and the common usage... in many, if not most cases, the most common usage actually IS the official name (ie the official name is what the most number of sources use).

2) Something that we do not address in this Policy (yet) is the issue of source quality... and how quality interacts with commonness (or quantity). This is where the "Myocardial Infarction" vs. "Heart Attack" debate is instructive. Determining which of these two terms is the WP:COMMONNAME actually depends on the selection of sources. "Myocardial Infarction" is actually the more commonly used term of the two, if you limit the selection to scholarly medical sources. "Heart Attack" on the other hand is more commonly used if you include non-scholarly sources.

Now... there is (I think) a valid argument for saying that in a medicine related article, scholarly sources should be given much more weight than non-scholarly sources. Scholarly sources are considered relatively more reliable... and this should have an effect on determining commonality. In other words... WP:COMMONNAME needs to account for quality as well as quantity. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

But "scholarly" is mixing up the notions of quality and specialization. I wouldn't generally put specialized sources ahead of high-quality sources written for a general audience. I understand it came out as you say with Heart attack being a redirect to the more technical medical term, but that seems like an outlier from normal WP title style, doesn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dick. I had assumed that Heart attack was a dab page listing all kinds of specific diseases referred to generally/commonly as a "heart attack". But with Heart attack redirecting to the article, that's definitely an outlier. Seem like a blatant violation of common name to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I also concur, strongly, with DickLyon and Born2cycle on this, and would further say we should explicitly put high-quality, general audience sources before academic ones when it comes to both article naming and (not relevant here, but at WP:RS) general article prose. Far too many medical and hard-science articles on WP are already essentially impenetrable to anyone but people who at least have undergraduate degrees in the field covered by the article; they're categorically unencylopedic. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 07:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Having the article named "Myocardial infarction" rather than "Heart attack" is a pretty clear violation of normal naming convention. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to start a fight, and I don't agree that it's "blatant", but I think it's a good example of where the specialist camps have won out in getting a consensus that looks a bit odd compared to the usual consensus in other parts of WP. Not as odd as the capitalization in birds, dog breeds, Halley's Comet, and such, which derive from specialist-group recommendations and are at odd with the general advice of the MOS. I'm sure there are other examples of specialists' influence in choosing a COMMONNAME as well. Dicklyon (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... I did not intend to start a fight either... my point was simply that in assessing commonness (a function of quantity), we should look at quality as well. If we have a choice between two names or terms... one commonly used by high-quality sources, and the other commonly used by low-quality sources, I think we should generally follow the high-quality sources... even if there are more low-quality sources when you actually count them up. This would still apply the concept of WP:COMMONNAME... but also takes the quality of each group of sources into account. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Good. I have no problem putting higher weight on higher-quality sources. Of course, when it comes down to arguments, people are going to see quality where they see it. So, more generally, I'd say we need to keep COMMONNAME in perspective, as just one strategy in support of one title criterion: recognizability. Too often editors act as if the title will automatically be chosen by what's most common (in the sources that they prefer). Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Existing guidance on this is sufficient, and too many people are WP:COMMONNAME fetishists as it is, who cannot seem to recognize that it is moderated by WP:COMMONSENSE, as well as various issues raised by WP:MOS, etc. Codifing just two cases, and in such a way that suggests it has anything at all to do with wikiprojects and their project-level "guidelines", is hazardous, as any number of WP:ARBCOM decisions reining in wayward WP:OWNish projects, and the introduction of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to limit them further, both demonstrate. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 06:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Common names

There are a number of problems with this section.

1. There are seven times as many examples (21) of this simple principle than are needed.
2. Comet Hale-Bopp was deliberately added solely as an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
3. Comet Hale-Bopp is not even commonly spelled using an endash - it is both correctly and per common use spelled with a hyphen, so what is it doing in the common names section?
4. Hale-Bopp is both the official name and the common name. Just like people, many comets have the same name, so there is a designation, sort of like an ID#, but it is not a part of the name.
5. Hale-Bopp is not a good example to use because it is currently incorrectly spelled. If it is used, it should be spelled correctly, with a hyphen, but with over 15 examples already the point is made five times over, even without including it as an example.

I would recommend including the following, please edit this list to choose a consensus list of which ones to include.--Apteva (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Draft list of common names examples
Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton) Caffeine (not: 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione) Seven Samurai (not: Shichinin no Samurai)

It would have been more straightforward to simply clarify COMMONNAME so it says that it does or doesn't apply to dashes (or punctuation, or you might prefer the more nebulous word "style"). Or has that been tried, and abandoned for lack of a consensus? Art LaPella (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That is covered in WP:Title punctuation. But the number of examples here was getting ridiculous. Bear in mind that there are two types of names that can be used, official or common name. Apteva (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I understand your frustration that Hale–Bopp was added to the examples. Yes, everyone knows you don't like it. But please assume good faith, rather than attributing the worst motives. In fact it is an excellent example to include, because that is the form used in the WP article Comet Hale–Bopp, and it is included also at WP:MOS (after thorough testing of consensus in the Great Dash Consultation of 2011, with which you are familiar). Its occurrence both here and at MOS helps editors understand the mechanisms in play at each of these major resource pages. There is no disharmony between title policy here and style guidelines at MOS. A small minority wants to find and even promote conflict; but most editors are fed up with that. Please back off. Consensus at RFC/Apteva over such disruption is clear. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 02:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with frustration with Hale-Bopp. It is absolute stupidity to use Comet Hale–Bopp with a dash when that is a) not its name and b) not the name it is commonly known as, in a section called "Common names". It was clearly put there simply to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. But seriously, using a comet as an example? There are only a few dozens of comet articles. But Halley's is no better - Halley's is its full name. Apteva (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed Hale~Bopp to Halley's to avoid hyphen/dash drama. The list has begun to get bloated of late, however. Perhaps a paring is warranted? Dohn joe (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no drama really, Dohn joe: except for those who need it to promote a partisan view that was set aside as against consensus, in 2011. I have argued in support of the harmonious use of examples at WP:MOS and here. If you want to promote disharmony, that is your choice. But the time for tolerating the view that clashes are normal is over. If the list of examples needs trimming, go ahead and trim it. But leave the most instructive examples in place, so that editors can see how the policies and guidelines work together to promote excellence and certainty in the development of Wikipedia.

I have restored that instructive example. Noetica^Tea? 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the typical edit warring that goes on at the MOS. There is absolutely no consensus to replace Halley's with Hale-Bopp. "Undid revision by User:Dohn joe; the inclusion of Comet Hale–Bopp has supported with argument on the talkpage, as reflecting a well-tested consensual form instructively included at WP:MOS also, and as at the WP article itself; discuss!" This is absolute nonsense. Apteva (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Noetica, I'm glad you saw the point of it, which was to help dispel Apteva's unsupported idea that MOS and TITLE are in conflict, by using an example where COMMONNAME is not the same as common style. The Comet Hale–Bopp example is particularly apt, since an editor elicited a statement from the IAU (the naming authority for comets) that the name itself (with hyphen or otherwise) is not offically preferred, but that the official designation should be used. So, since WP prefers common names, this is a good contrast. Since WP also has a manual of style, this is a good chance to show that the MOS styling is not in conflict with using the common name. There may be other good examples we could use here, but this one was current, and Apteva's oddball take on it was firmly rejected by an overwhelming consensus at the RFC/U. Nobody else objected, so it seems like a good item to keep, even if we do reduce the list. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's that word point. This was solely put there to attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. "I'm glad you saw the point of it". Apteva (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, the word "point" is not by itself of interest. The mere fact that Dicklyon happened to use it does not show WP:POINTiness. The inclusion was not with you in mind personally; but it has the great benefit of illustrating how things work consensually on Wikipedia, as opposed to a view you hold that has been set aside as non-consensual.

It so happens that yes, you sought to have the article Comet Hale–Bopp moved; and consensus was against that move. It so happened that yes, you have tried at many forums, many times, to bend policy and guidelines your way; but consensus is revealed as contrary to that way.

Good guidelines and good policy do not shy away from ruling on cases that have been controversial but are now settled. Such settled precedents and decisions are exactly what editors look for in policy and guidelines.

Move on?

Noetica^Tea? 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• No consensus to add 'Comet Hale-Bopp': Considering the recent, intense discussions to force dashes into titles where the wp:COMMONNAME has used hyphens for over 120 years (as: Michelson-Morley experiment), then the addition of endashed title "Comet Hale–Bopp" (where both the dash and the word "Comet" have been questioned) was certain to generate controversy, and could be judged as easily disruptive to editing the policy wp:TITLE. Might as well list "Pro–abortion (not pro-choice)" as an example and expect no controversy. I have removed example "Comet Hale~Bopp" until clear consensus to re-add. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Use italics only for italicized species or such: Another major issue is the rampant use of italics, where instead, many editors have spent years to clearly italicize films, genus or species names. I suggest to use prefix "not:" (with colon) and italicize the Guinea pig's species name, "Cavia porcellus" (as the official alternative):

• Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)
• Caffeine (not: 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione)
• Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)

Also, perhaps add an example of an italicized species name, and a film name, as the common names. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion on formatting. It's much clearer and less ambiguous. I also think a film title would serve as an easily recognizable example of what to do and what not to do. How about an "English vs. foreign" example, like "Seven Samurai (not: Shichinin no Samurai)", and/or a "short vs. long" example, like "Dr. Strangelove (not: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb) szyslak (t) 14:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is much better. The colon adds nothing, nor does the italics,[Adding the colon is fine, and losing the italics,] especially because one of the examples is in italics. But please, if anyone wants something included, just add it to the draft above - but also, if someone removes it, obviously the addition needs to reach consensus before it is re-added. I took out guinea pig because it duplicates the caffeine example. Both, though, are excellent examples of the principle involved. Apteva (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to add Guinea pig or a movie? Apteva (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Are any other examples needed, or are three plenty? Apteva (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Halley

Since this is about common names, rather than hyphen usage, I have replaced HB with Halley. The next person to change it gets an Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement block. *points to yellow light up top* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not from you, though. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not involved. I don't care which way the hyphen goes, I care about people edit warring over it. Therefore, I've removed the reason to edit war, which I have the authority under WP:Discretionary sanctions to do.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I care about people edit warring over it—So why did you participate in the edit war? Should I block you, or did your edit warring come in just in time? I think you're involved now that you took a side. The debate was: is Hale–Bopp an instructive example or is a needless distraction b/c it has controversial punctuation? You took a side. You seem involved to me. I don't have a problem with the WP:AC/DS warning, but you shouldn't be the one to do it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I stopped an edit war by removing a needlessly-controversial example. That's NOT involved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The entire edit war was over the question about whether to include it. How can taking a side on that not make you involved? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry this is probably not the best place to discuss this, I'll take this elsewhere.ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion related to this at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy that is parallel to discussions at WikiProject Editor Retention about bullying behavior by admins. Neotarf (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I didn't mean to start a fight (much less a wheel war), just wanted to see if anyone objected. Apteva and WIkid77 do. There's plenty of evidence elsewhere that consensus is against them on the relevant point, that COMMONNAME is not about styling. I think we'd be better off to address that directly, with some words to say that the MOS specifies styling and that COMMONNAME is not saying take the common styling. I don't have time to draft the language right now, but if someone wants to, I expect it will not be hard to get to a consensus (that doesn't make these two happy). Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That clearly then would not be a consensus, and this is a non-starter. By the way, it is not a wheel war just because an admin reverts another admin - it would be a wheel war if another admin reverted the last edit because it was done as an admin action. The previous edits were just an edit war, and the editor who was an admin who was participating in the edit war was not doing so as an admin. Or might I say soon to be former admin if that activity continues. Apteva (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS disagrees with you over what a consensus would be. On Wikipedia, it doesn't mean 100% agreement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nor does it ever mean 100% agreement when large groups are involved, but it does mean that if there are valid disagreements, there is no consensus. "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." (emphasis added) The very core of using consensus is that even if 6,000 agree with something and only one disagrees, that one just might be right. By the way, though, the origin of consensus decision making was the argument that there could never be more than one correct answer, and as such when that answer was found everyone would certainly all agree. Apteva (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. And such effort has been made, although not to your satisfaction. So it goes, and consensus is still achieved. The very core of using consensus is that even if the one voice might be right, it's better for the encyclopedia to continue on with the consensus rather than grind to a halt while that one continually tries to sway each of the other 6,000. You don't appear to allow that the one voice might be wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WP does grind to a halt occasionally, but only due to server issues, and then only briefly. There is never a reason to not bring up issues when they are observed. If two, three, or a dozen editors want to discuss an issue for a megabyte or a gigabyte, that will never have even one iota of any impact on wikipedia or on any other editor. Telling any of those editors not to bring it up or not to discuss it though, is a huge problem, and violates the basic principles of Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, JHJ. Firm consensus has been settled on this issue, and it is a blemish on Wikipedian process that the result of a consensus cannot be enshrined instructively on a policy page, because one side militantly refuses to accept it. And by the very title and first line of this section (initiated by Sarek himself), he has bullied his way into the dispute in a way that assists a disruptive minority. That's all I intend to say here on a topic introduced by Sarek himself. Admin Erik was right to take the matter to Sarek's talkpage; I have contributed there too, and I suggest that others do the same. Noetica^Tea? 22:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A review of how comet Hale-Bopp (and by the way correcting Hale—Bopp in another editors comment is not appropriate) got into the MOS reveals that there was no consensus for it to be included, and is far from being a "firm consensus". Apteva (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

While it may be technically accurate to say that "COMMONNAME is not about styling", it's a point that ignores the broader principle upon which COMMONNAME is based: follow usage in reliable sources. Now, if there is no clear and obvious answer from usage in RS, then it makes sense to look at our own conventions. But if a given style is clearly most commonly used in RS, we should reflect that in WP, and it is not to be trumped by some arcane MOS guidance. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Apteva (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Born2cycle (see discussions about Presidents etc. below). I'd also think that sometimes it's wise to be flexible and pragmatic and let COMMONSENSE trump MOS for the same reason: (1) if it doesn't matter: i.e. if the article(s) in question are very minor articles—they get few pageviews, so they don't affect the perceived quality of Wikipedia—then it doesn't make a lot of sense for people to be endlessly warring over them, (2) if following MOS rules (grammatical rules) would result in an article that looks messy and inconsistent to many people—a word being capitalized in some places and not in others—or disrespectful, and so would result in endless edit warring, then a little flexibility can eliminate a lot of grief, as per the President(s) vs. president(s) RfCs:
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles of people .282.29
• Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Requested move  
• (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#List of WP:JOBTITLES articles)
• LittleBen (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Backwards. (1) If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't make a lot of sense for people to be endlessly warring over them; but it takes two sides to make a war. (2) This isn't about exceptions to a guideline (see WP:GUIDES) where it isn't even obvious that the guideline applies. This is about disregarding a specific MoS guideline altogether in the case of Hale–Bopp, against consensus and without bothering to change the guideline. If that attitude doesn't cause edit warring, it's hard to imagine what would. Art LaPella (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately there are other guidelines, like "Use English", that have been widely ignored because some people prefer to intimidate people who try to follow guidelines—and recruit armies to ram through their POV in RfCs and RfMs—rather than try to change MOS. Sometimes it makes sense to defer to regional English usage or to the (peculiar, or otherwise) usage of people who are specialists in a particular narrow field, rather than try to impose one set of rules on the whole world. Sometimes real-world usage doesn't follow MOS (or dictionaries, for that matter). In Wikipedia, we are surely supposed to report established real-world stuff rather than create "original research". LittleBen (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is vague, and interpretable or misinterpretable (it excludes diacritics, if you're resurrecting that issue). Hale–Bopp is an explicit example at WP:ENDASH. If you don't think Wikipedia is supposed to say Hale–Bopp, argue your case there. All horizontal line crusaders should be quarantined to that one talk page. Art LaPella (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think the issue is worth arguing about, but do I think it would be a good idea to invite ONLY people who have contributed to the Hale-Bopp article to an RfC on the topic of hyphens vs. dashes in that article, rather than have people who have never contributed to the article and have no interest in—or knowledge of—the topic trying to bully the contributors around. LittleBen (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If the guideline has no practical effect, it should be removed. Art LaPella (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd agree, but it's like many laws that are no longer relevant—they are not repealed because that would be too costly and too much trouble—and so they are ignored. I'd like to think that a Simple MOS would eliminate attempts to micromanage Wikipedia, but there will always be people who insist that MOS is the final word, and that the Strunk and White approach to English is rubbish. ;-) LittleBen (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We should also limit any discussion of titles to those working on the article, so that WP:TITLE is not used to bully people who don't like it. For instance, people working on Korean topics might prefer an article title to be written in hangul, and it's nobody else's business. Likewise, references shouldn't be required if the people actually working on the article don't want to use them. And only people who actually helped write an article should be allowed to vote on it becoming FA. — kwami (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• <Quote>For instance, people working on Korean topics might prefer an article title to be written in hangul, and it's nobody else's business.<Unquote> For instance, people working on Korean topics in English Wikipedia might prefer much of an article to be written in Hangul, but a majority of users would not be able to read it, so surely they would be creating huge usability and accessibility problems for the majority of users if they were allowed to get away with this. Reliable references are also important. LittleBen (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Hale–Bopp guideline isn't repealed because it's a consensus. One thing we can be sure of is that it isn't "ignored"!
• Hale–Bopp editors are experts on the comet's orbit etc. but not on punctuation. But if every article chooses its own style, just change the MOS to an essay and I'll find something else to do.
• Simple MOS wasn't intended to change the MOS's authority. It just makes it easier to understand.
• Strunk & White is a style manual, so MOS is the appropriate place to promote them too. Art LaPella (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The irony is that MOS is probably not used (or little used) by people who write, or polish up, featured articles—they already know how to write good English. MOS is also not used (or little used) by people who might benefit from it—because pieces of it are scattered all over the place, rather than the all the pieces that make up MOS being in a well-indexed and categorized, individually-searchable MOS namespace. LittleBen (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"I think it would be a good idea to invite ONLY people who have contributed to the Hale-Bopp article to an RfC on the topic of hyphens vs. dashes in that article, rather than have people who have never contributed to the article and have no interest in—or knowledge of—the topic trying to bully the contributors around." Really this exact topic has been discussed numerous times, at the CHB talk page and elsewhere. See this. Also, I think you should check out WP:SSF. AgnosticAphid talk 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Strunk&White, despite being titled "The Elements of Style" is not a style guide in the sense that the MOS is supposed to be a style guide - a description of how articles are constructed. Instead it is a guide to good writing. All of the advice from Strunk&White that is in the MOS does not belong there, because it is beyond the charter of the MOS to attempt to teach good writing and correct punctuation. Apteva (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

[Outdent from all this repetitive noise that Apteva and Wikid77 and LittleBenW and Enric Naval keep re-re-re-re-re-re-re-rehashing in every forum they can think of in what is probably the largest wave of WP:FORUMSHOPping in Wikipedia history. If it does not stop I swear I will take all four of them to ARBCOM for sanctioning. Their incessant tag-team browbeating on this non-issue has been the most disruptive flood of verbal diarrh[o]ea I have ever seen in my seven+ years as an editor here, even counting the 10 or so tendentious "capitalization warriors" at a certain zoology project.] WT:AT very badly needs to make it clear that it follows naming usage in reliable sources, not style usage, which is completely severable from the core facts of a name (it's Hale and Bopp, not Hall and Boop, and it goes in Hale–Bopp order, not Bopp–Hale, and "comet" comes before not after, and in English, etc.). Style is what MOS is for. AT has no reason to ever get involved in what glyph is being used for what purpose, or any other style matter; that's utterly outside AT's scope. AT and the NC pages necessarily and demonstrably derive their style guidance directly from MOS. This is and always has been the case, otherwise we would have tens, even hundreds, of thousands of articles whose titles did not agree with even the first sentence of their lead sections. QED.

PS: As I've pointed out everywhere Apteva and his gang try to ask yet another WP:PARENT, a) online sources lean towards hyphen for simple expedience (keyboards don't have dash keys), so it's a meaningless statistic (even aside from the fact that online prose is prone to ungrammaticality and sloppy style); and b) offline sources cannot be proven to be doing one thing or another – without access to the exact font files used by the desktop publishing system that eventually resulted in the print publication, Apteva or whoever cannot prove what glyph is actually being used, since many fonts make no size distinction between hyphens and dashes at all. MOS routinely picks one option from various available options and says "do this on Wikipedia, for consistency"; this is such a case, and that is what MOS exists to do. MOS is by definition prescriptive; it is an in-house style manual, just like that at the New York Times or a the British Journal of Herpetology or whatever. If a grand total of four editors simply refuse to let this sink in and cannot stop disrupting WT:MOS and other forums with their obsessive, non-stop whinging about hyphenation, then they need to walk away, or the community will make them walk away, via WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM if comes to that. WP:5THWHEEL and WP:NOTHERE are strongly applicable to these four. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What, more disruptive than the date delinking drama? The underlying problem is that Wikipedia is based on a public academic subculture. Therefore, it lacks a good way to prevent dramas from continuing for months or years. Therefore, refusing to cooperate, and making common cause with others who won't cooperate, is the easiest way to get more attention than Jimbo. It wasn't this bad when I worked for Boeing. Art LaPella (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The well-established harmony between WP:TITLE and WP:MOS

To address points raised by Born2cycle above, in a section concerned with a specific point of editing and with administrative oversight of WP:TITLE, I am starting a new section, with a sequence of numbered points. (Responses below my post please, not within it.–Noetica)

Born2cycle:

1. There is no lack of accord between the two long-established pages WP:MOS and WP:TITLE. Each has its role on Wikipedia. A small minority does not like this. You speak pejoratively of "some arcane MOS guidance"; but it is all derived consensually – arguably far more consensually than certain tight and untested algorithms that have been promoted and included in WP:TITLE.
2. Note especially: ArbCom sought in 2011 to resolve a long dispute over hyphens and en dashes in titles (notably Mexican–American War). It called for a community effort to settle the matter once and for all. The effort began at WT:MOS, and was soon moved to a huge subpage of WP:MOS by PMAnderson. So that MOS subpage was initiated by the most implacable activist against MOS at the time. The matter was resolved, to the satisfaction of ArbCom and almost everyone else, through wide well-advertised consultancy involving 60 editors. Included squarely in that consensus was specific acceptance of Comet Hale–Bopp, and rejection of the form with a hyphen.
3. Clearly then, ArbCom itself recognises the crucial role of MOS, and the inevitable inclusion of article titles in the scope of MOS.
4. MOS is not obliged to use reliable sources in fashioning Wikipedia style guidelines. Provisions for reliable sources explicitly address articles. However, MOS does respect all relevant reliable sources anyway (far more than anything in WP:TITLE ever has): and those are major dictionaries, major style guides, specialist style guides, and best-practice publishers. That is how manuals of style work. No other take on how to develop a genuine manual of style is at all coherent.
5. A small majority fail to understand this history, and these ideas. It would be helpful if they would take a fresh look at the situation. If they refuse to do so, the community is justified in asserting itself. We should follow well-established consensus; we should make policy and guideline provisions fit consensus, rather than contorting them to accommodate views known to be against consensus.
6. Consensus can change on these matters; but no change has been demonstrated. Noisy persistence from a few is no mark of changed opinion in the community.

Noetica^Tea? 00:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Claiming that reliable sources (and NPOV) are irrelevant as guides to proper English usage is surely like saying that (your) "original research" is preferable to reliable sources. To state your claim backwards: reliable sources are not obliged to follow MOS, and common usage is not obliged to follow grammar textbooks or dictionaries. Surely common usage defines what goes in dictionaries, not the other way around. LittleBen (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Which is also what encyclopedias do - while they are traditionally written by experts in each field, those experts do not put their current, unpublished research into the articles, but stick with established well agreed facts. The current MOS has strayed far from what it should be saying. FYI, Arbcom does not address content disputes, but only conduct disputes. MOS has a huge conduct problem. Apteva (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Little Ben:

• Who makes that claim, though? I certainly don't. I collect and study works that serve as "reliable sources" for MOS. Do you? And of course "common usage defines what goes in dictionaries", as you write. Who says otherwise? I don't!

Apteva:

• For most of that, I can't see the relevance. As for a "huge conduct problem" at MOS, RFC/U is an appropriate means for dealing with any such impediment to collegial development of the guidelines. So is ArbCom, if necessary. The problems that were solved in 2011 were basically conduct problems, and the solution was to get clear about the content of MOS and to confirm that the provisions there do apply to titles. ArbCom oversaw the process, with a profound effect on conduct generally, but also on clarity in the style guidelines and on the question of their coverage. Let's hope we don't need a repeat of it all, as some people seem determined to bring about. It is unfair when others are swept up in the ensuing turmoil – others, who simply want to achieve consensus decisions and then see them implemented.

Noetica^Tea? 02:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• <To quote you:> 4. MOS is not obliged to use reliable sources in fashioning Wikipedia style guidelines. <Unquote> (Incidentally, I don't think that MOS fashions Wikipedia style guidelines. Surely individual people fashion the Wikipedia style guidelines in MOS.) LittleBen (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So what? That is not the same as what you attribute to me: "Claiming that reliable sources (and NPOV) are irrelevant as guides to proper English usage." And you completely ignore my continuation anyway, along with my direct question to you. Read, study, think, ... and then perhaps respond. (The order is important.) As for "MOS fashions", that's an ordinary and harmless use of metonymy. Noetica^Tea? 02:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to wade through all that. Show me a link to something that substantiates with community consensus or an arbcom decision that MOS trumps clear usage in reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. That's not what I said, anyway. Focus. WP:MOS and WP:TITLE are not at loggerheads in a game of cards. They are in harmony, though a minority refuses to accept their accord. WP:TITLE is about choice of titles for articles; MOS is about styling all parts of all articles, including of course their titles. ArbCom accepts that, as explained above in detail. So does almost everyone else. If it were otherwise, consistency within articles could not be achieved for a start.
Noetica^Tea? 02:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom does not deal with content, only conduct. What they did say, is that MOS does not affect content. Article titles are content. Apteva (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, article titles are content. And like all other content, styling is applied to them. And that is the province of MOS. That is the view that ArbCom endorsed; and it is almost impossible to articulate a coherent alternative. Noetica^Tea? 08:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• <To quote you again:> 4. MOS is not obliged to use reliable sources in fashioning Wikipedia style guidelines. <Unquote> (Incidentally, I don't think that MOS fashions Wikipedia style guidelines. Surely individual people fashion the Wikipedia style guidelines in MOS.) LittleBen (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Who the blank is "you"? And please, do not answer that question. Per WP:FOC focus on content, not on the participants in the discussion. As stated above, "MOS is not obliged..." works far better. Yeesh. But no, Title and MoS currently conflict with each other, and that can only be fixed at MoS, not here. Delete the section on Article titles and replace it with "Article titles are determined by the Wikipedia:Article titles policy." If the MoS says nothing about titles it is impossible for it to be in conflict with Title. Apteva (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but I suspect that you will continue to complain that it is, since your objection is to any consensus that you disagree with. — kwami (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  It is certainly worth trying. I know that I will not complain about any consensus (by definition of consensus). Apteva (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Little Ben, why do you repeat the same post (see 02:37, 4 January 2013, then also 03:02, 4 January), almost word for word? I answered you the first time. Please strike out the second occurrence, because it might unfairly appear as if I had not answered you. Noetica^Tea? 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Ben thinks he was unclear, or your answer did not satisfy. There is zero reason to ask someone to strike what is not a personal attack or other objectionable content such as a BLP violation. You can try to respond again, or ignore, your choice. KillerChihuahua 05:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not so, KillerChihuahua. There is excellent reason for such a request. In fact, I gave the excellent reason. Little Ben has posted a few times here without considering readability, and a few of us have had to refactor so everyone can follow the discussion. Little Ben quoted me out of context – and the context I had given made perfectly clear what I meant. It is captious and juvenile to do such a thing, and then to do it again, when the flaw had already been pointed out once. ♥
Noetica^Tea? 06:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Refractoring another's post is discouraged. What can be done is ask the editor in question on their talk page if they could refractor it, but if they choose not to, or never make another edit, it is best left as it was. The exceptions are fixing indenting and changing section headings to a more neutral heading, or placing new sections at the bottom of the page, but that is about it. See WP:TPO for details. The purpose is not so that it is understandable, but so that it does not offend anyone. Apteva (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure refactoring actual talkpage comments is discouraged (though there are exceptions). The refactoring that others have done to correct around Little Ben's interruptions of posts, and confusing fragmentation, are perfectly standard. And I, for one, will not strike out his inexplicably repeated post, which I had already fully addressed. Better that he fix that. Noetica^Tea? 08:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Better that you ignore it, rather than bother asking him to strike it. KillerChihuahua 12:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Noetica, given the well-established harmony, long practiced, and the months of discussions that clearly reject Apteva's claims of a conflict, it seems that we need to put something more explicit into the title policy page, since the same tired arguments have been brought to complain about a clarifying example. Perhaps a COMMONSTYLE section that says titles are styled in common with the text, according to the MOS, and that COMMONNAME doesn't mean we defer to content sources for style. Obviously this is not in conflict with our respect for sources, for both content and style, since we use style sources for style issues and content sources for content issues. If you or someone will draft some language, it shouldn't be hard to converge on an appropriate clarification. There are already words to that effect in the MOS, so maybe we just need to include something like a copy of those. It may be hard in the current disruptive climate, where certain editors won't admit what consensus clearly has established, so I'm wondering what suggestions others have, too. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I would like to see that consensus confirmed, and formally incorporated into WP:TITLE. So far it's only there only implicitly, since the page barely touches on style matters (the province of MOS, as ArbCom and almost everyone else sees it). I agree also that this may not be the right time. A silly season, as everyone settles down after Christmas and New Year. On top of that, delayed resolution of an RFC/U is holding up development at WT:MOS, and here too I'm afraid.

So I would defer the matter for a couple of weeks at least, then check whether the talkpages are more settled and ready for collegial work.
Noetica^Tea? 06:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest linking to the relevant part of MoS in the See Also, and leaving it at that. Duplication of content is undesirable, and lengthening any policy any more than necessary doubly so. You cannot prevent all title disagreements by adding MoS to the AT policy page; I venture to say you will prevent none or close enough to none as to make the additions a negative net on the policy. KillerChihuahua 12:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is already linked in See also. I added a brief note there about what can be found there. Probably it makes sense to link it in the COMMONNAME section as well, as that's where the confusion seems to come up with a few editors. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. This is perennial nonsense based on ignorance of the AT–MOS relationship that Noetica outlines so cogently at the top of this thread. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 06:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• The conflict talked about above seems to me to rest solely in the minds of certain editors who cannot accept the non-binary or non-algorithmic nature of this publication. They can shout about it until they turn blue, but it won't affect the fact that reliable sources are not determinate in such a case. The use of hyphens and dashes is highly trivial to the majority of editors. Their use is purely a matter of editorial preference of this encyclopaedia, and we are free to so determine from time to time – in consideration or in denial of other sources, and a minor one at that. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed that the proposed intrusion of MoS content into this policy is not a good idea; and that most editors couldn't give a rat's ass about hyphens vs. dashes; cluttering up the policy with minutiae on such matters is unlikely to cause some reversal in this. If they care, they'll wade through the MoS; if they don't, cluttering up this page with it won't help. KillerChihuahua 12:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  There is no question of intrusion, KillerChihuahua. You seem in thrall to the myth that content and styling of content are not separable. Well, they must be separable. By definition. The associated myth is that this policy and those guidelines are in conflict – a tug of war over article titles. Wrong! It's just that a few editors, who cannot accept well-settled consensus at MOS and who are welded to minority opinions about style, refuse to accept the role of MOS on Wikipedia. And they cause disruption over what should be a non-issue. PMAnderson was banned, then blocked for a year; when he comes back he will still have an indefinite topic ban. That suggests the level of fanaticism the developers of a consensual MOS must contend with. They don't want an interminable fight! Nor does ArbCom. It called for, supervised, and accepted unprecedentedly consensual refinements to style guidelines (that is, of course, at MOS) to deal with poor behaviour from such zealots. And it was all about article titles. The present conduct difficulties are just a re-run of the first round. Editors at MOS are totally fed up with it all, and I'm sure they look forward to formal endorsement of a current RFC/U that definitively rejects such disruption.
  Better perhaps if you spoke for yourself, rather than asserting uncivilly "most editors couldn't give a rat's ass about hyphens vs. dashes". Belittling the dedicated work in a sector of Wikipedia that you neither know nor care much about is unbecoming. Stick to whatever you might be good at, and let others get on with work that is their specialty, and their contribution to a better encyclopedia. Noetica^Tea? 13:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  You clearly didn't understand me; let me try to be more clear. MoS is already bloated; there is no reason, and significant reason not, to place what is properly MoS here. Adding such detail here would have, among other things, a discouraging effect on editor contribution. This is not desirable. It would also replicate instructions, which is to be avoided, as that is the road to contradictions as editors change one and not the other. Is that clear enough, or should I rephrase again? KillerChihuahua 16:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  KC, is anyone suggesting doing that? ie, copying a bunch of stuff from MOS to here? If so would you give me a pointer to that proposal? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Here; "Perhaps a COMMONSTYLE section that says titles are styled in common with the text, according to the MOS, [...] Obviously this is not in conflict with our respect for sources, for both content and style, since we use style sources for style issues and content sources for content issues. If you or someone will draft some language, it shouldn't be hard to converge on an appropriate clarification. There are already words to that effect in the MOS, so maybe we just need to include something like a copy of those. " KillerChihuahua 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Ok; I don't read that as suggesting copying any "such detail" here, duplicating instructions. I think Dicklyon is just suggesting that there be a comment that article titles should be styled as the phrase would appear in the text of the article. See the WP:TITLEFORMAT section, there's already a note there that capitalization should be as in running text except for the first letter, there could be another comment about style/punc also being as it would in running text. Was that your take on Dicklyon's suggestion? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Links to the ArbCom-ruling-initiated discussion that yielded dashed version of the comet name: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 123#Dashes: a completed consensual draft for inclusion in WP:MOS (click [show] to reveal the draft), from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Arbitration motion regarding hyphens and dashes, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=429209333#Hyphens_and_dashes. If what's gone before is too long for you to read, you should not assume that the it doesn't exist until someone else digests it for you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  The essential links, JHJ. Thanks for tabling them here. But will you please clarify: you are addressing B2C, right? Noetica^Tea? 13:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  His were the comments that prompted me to dig up those links, yep. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

JHunterJ thank you for those links, I skimmed them and I do not see where information on this debate was published on this talk page (presumably it is in the archives of this talk page), and I do not see where the decision was agreed that the MOS should override COMMONNAME or where Arbcom accepted that decision.

"The well-established harmony between WP:TITLE and WP:MOS" Yes the MOS is a guideline and this is a policy, nothing in the MOS is binding on this policy and I think that all wording in the MOS that implies it is ought to be removed. I am not concerned with what should be done as a style, (whether a hyphen or an ndash some other thing is used within a title) when an outside authority has not mandated what to use -- I see this as similar to converting UPPERCASE names to first letter upper-case followed by lower-case.

A an aside it seems to me that the debate about Mexican–American War or Mexican-American War depends on whether the term used in the article title is viewed as a description of an event or the name of an event. If the former then I would have though that Mexican–American war would be the correct format for the article title.

What concerns me is the dismissal by some of the argument recently put forward on the MOS talk page of always ignoring an outside style in favour of an in-house style. The example given is that some professional bodies may mandate a style for the area where they are the world authority on the formation of the names to be used including the use of hyphens or dashes. If that style is followed by the majority of (non expert) reliable sources, then I think Wikipedia should be guided by the usage in reliable sources, and in that case Wikipedia guidance should be to follow the usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

One point that may be missing in the discussion is the fact that WP is in a position where it can influence the common name and and is cited when discussing the spelling of names of local interest. So if we are being looked at as a source for determining the common name, should the MoS override the other sources? I'm not sure what impact this view should have on these discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

However we choose to punctuate a title, I think we agree the same phrase should be punctuated the same way throughout the article, and in other articles. From a copyeditor's point of view, if the MoS guideline (or any guideline) says "Hale–Bopp", and nobody changes it, then that should be the end of it. If it isn't, that won't make me go through the entire library looking for different kinds of usage, each time I find a punctuation mark. It will make me ignore all of you, and find something else to do. Art LaPella (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hyphen anecdotes

Forcing dashes has upset editor harmony

The dash/hyphen debates have caused many heated arguments, conflicts, topic bans, and user blocks, as destructive of user harmony. There is no wide consensus to change hyphens to dashes to override policy wp:COMMONNAME, to not spell names in the common hyphenated manner, not claim style to change spelling as acceptable, not putting digit "1" where an "i" is the common spelling as a style issue. Many editors know hyphens are a spelling issue, from the compound word "merry-go-round" as spelled with hyphens, not dashes, and that is why editors do not agree that hyphens are not part of the common-name spelling. In fact, it is clear from reviewing widespread comments, that many editors do not see the need to put dashes in titles which have contained hyphens for many years, such as in the 1887 "Michelson-Morley experiment" which names a collaboration between two scientists, and the hyphen does not mean they had an experimental marriage, but Michelson's work was noted as earlier circa 1881. If the name must be forked for clarity, then try "Michelson-later-with-Morley experiment". Also, almost 99% of sources spell "hand-eye coordination" without a dash (even slash "hand/eye" is 3x more common than dash). Otherwise, dashes have low semantic value, and arguing to force them into older names is destroying harmony among many editors. It is enough to use dashes where they are the common spelling, such as a rare, notable group "Dashes–R–Us". Otherwise, use the common-name spelling. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Wikid: wrong talkpage for this topic. Noetica^Tea? 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

<yawn> "To bed! To bed!" Says Sleepy-head. I'm hoping I'll wake up in the morning to find that it's all been just a bad dream. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Double-extra-yawn, and yes this is the wrong venue. Dash/hyphen debates have not caused arguments. That's contorted nonsense, Wikid77. "Debate" and "argument" are in this context essentially synonyms, so you are saying that dash/hyphen debates have caused heated debates, which is like saying the cause of rain is rain coming down. In point of clearly demonstrable fact, you, Apteva and LittleBenW (and perhaps one other editor who now disavows agreeing with you), like PMAnderson before you, have caused these many heated arguments, pointless conflicts, and much destruction of user harmony, leading to topic bans (no blocks yet that I am aware of), and surely more to come if you don't stop. Don't try to blame inanimate "debates" as the cause of what you and the rest of the "MOS conspiracy theory WP:GANG" are directly and personally responsible for. "Debates" did not make a decision to be disruptive and tendentious. You did that. And you're still doing it by posting these off-topic, anti-dash style rants here. Stop being an angry WP:MASTODON stomping on everything around you. The community's patience for your antics have worn very, very thin. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaaah, dawn's approaching, and it's a bright new day! I sincerely hope that Wikid77 has learnt what might be in store for him if he continues these attempts to carry Apteva's torch. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 16:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77, what you are concerned about does not seem to be an Article TITLE issue (which is why this is not the right place to discuss it). The editors to this policy page only get into the dash vs. hyphen debate peripherally - when it impacts an article TITLE. When it does involve a TITLE, we usually say: follow the MOS, unless there is a good reason not to do so (ie we tend to support the MOS, but accept that there might be occasional specific titles that would qualify as rare exceptions to the MOS... and those we examine on a specific case by case basis). Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Dashes as a typographic fork of hyphens

An en dash character is essentially being treated as a modified, typographic fork of a hyphen character, when renaming "Smith-Jones" as "Smith–Jones" because it is not a compound surname. Beyond overriding policy wp:TITLE with mere guideline wp:MOS, many editors dislike the extra forking of titles (see: wp:FORK), where the extra names generate extra work for maintenance and tracking. Many editors dislike forking of articles, or names, so that is another factor which upsets the harmony among editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Wikid: wrong talkpage for this topic. Noetica^Tea? 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And fundamentally failing to understand how WP:POLICY actually operates. There is no "it's just a guideline trying to override a Holy Policy" nonsense at work here. The pages are not in conflict, and community-created WP policies are no different from guidelines anyway, other that one should be more certain when citing WP:IAR to work around them when necessary. PS: Redirects are not forks. If you can't get the terminology and concepts correct, you are not in a position to lecture other editors about how WP works. WP:LETITGO. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility is an issue but editors argue not

Dashes are still a constant, never-ending accessibility issue (see wp:ACCESS), for both display and keyboard access, even though talk about Windows keychords ALT+0150 & ALT+0151, or similar Mac shift-OPT+hyphen key combinations, have been claimed as removing all barriers. Many people are neither convinced nor comfortable with searching for dashes, as if they could easily remember the key combinations (among 65,000 Unicode values), and when the browser shows little, or no, difference between hyphens and dashes, then their access remains limited. In many cases, people will input the common-name form (over 92% of sources use hyphens), and then the edit will display the redirect line for modification, not the actual article which they thought would be stored under the common-name title (expecting the rare dashed title to be the redirect). Likewise, running a word-count (or page-size) operation on the hyphenated redirect title will yield a disappointingly small size, not the actual size of the rare-dashed title article. Similarly, access to talk-pages is hindered if no hyphenated form has been redirected, and even when so, the editing of the hyphenated form will access the redirect contents, rather than editing the actual talk-page. At every step, the peculiar endashed name produces an endless continual series of barriers to easy access. Copying an article, as the basis of a new article, again repeats the complexities of the dual-update problems. Who knew a little 3-pixel addition to a "short horizontal line" could be such a major hassle. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Wikid: wrong talkpage for this topic. Noetica^Tea? 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As an AGF matter, this one is arguably marginally on-topic here, since it brings up page names, but is just confused and completely full of it. The claim that "Dashes are still a constant, never-ending accessibility issue" is complete and total hogwash. The guideline WP:ACCESS, since Wikid77 wants us to look here, never mentions hyphens or dashes at all, and nothing in its talk page archives demonstrate a problem with extended characters like this since ca. 2006, when a lot of browsers still only had half-assed UTF-8 support. The WP:WPACCESS project has no mention of dashes at all, anywhere, including archives. You don't have to search for titles that have dashes in them – it's mandatory that the hyphen variant of a title with a dash in it be available as a redirect. If someone forgot, create the redirect. No one's head will explode over any of this. It's uncommon for blind users of screen readers to "type" (speak) a URL to talk page, letter by letter, and if they do so, it will simply redirect them to the real talk page anyway if what they input was a redirect; screen readers are not going to mystically end up editing the redirect to the talk page rather than the real talk page unless this is the editor's actual intent because they're doing some kind of redir maintenance. Let's not be silly. Wikid77, you seem to be talking about all this from a technology level point of view that dates to ca. 1988. And why would anyone run a word-count on a redirect? If this were a real issue, we would have to seek some kind of alternative to the redirect system, since there are literally millions of redirects. Yet we do not, and no one is up in arms about it, ergo no actual problem.

Wikid77, please listen and stop this. You are blatantly fishing in your imagination, desperately, for anything you can think of that will trick other editors into believing there's a real issue here. There is not, and no one is buying it. You're also just plain lying, or very badly confused (or both) about some of this. If you input a name, in the URL bar or the search box, with a hyphen and it is a redirect to the dash version of the name, you automatically get redirected to the dash version. This is why they're called redirects. Your statement that this would "display the redirect line for modification, not the actual article" is patently false, as everyone here knows; who do you think you're fooling? Finally, if you are neither 1) an actual user of a screen reader, or 2) a Web developer who has studied online accessibility professionally, the odds of you actually knowing what you are talking about on this topic are very close to nil. For example, JAWS (the most-used screen-reader) as of at least Oct. 2012 recognizes both characters and chooses not to distinguish between them (as probably most human readers don't either); it reads both hyphen and dash as "dash", and there is no confusion or technical problem with dashes in that screen reader. But you wouldn't know that, because you're just making crap up as you go along, grasping at straws. WP:JUSTDROPIT before you make yourself look even more asinine. Dashes are not "a major hassle"; your troll-level campaigning is. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Lax treatment of hyphens has an ominous computer history

Omitting the hyphen is known for disaster, more than harmony. Yes, every computer scientist knows about the Mariner 1 launch failure, the first American probe to Venus ("Mariner 1#Program error"), noted by Arthur C. Clarke as "The most expensive hyphen in history" (so-called). The claim was that the Atlas-Agena rocket's guidance/steering control depended on a math formula where the hyphen had been incorrectly omitted, and the rocket could not recover direction, after temporary loss of radio contact, then headed downward, and had to be destroyed before impact. Another, less-likely report claimed the comma in a FORTRAN DO loop was incorrectly coded as a dot, causing "DO 5 K=1. 3" to run as assignment "DO5K=1.3" because FORTRAN in the 1960s would omit the spaces during parsing when no comma (1,000,000 could be "1 000 000"). I cannot emphasize enough how the lax handling, how playing fast and loose with hyphens, is an abomination to computer users who have gained a respect for the impact that one wrong key, among thousands of keystrokes, has played in a critical role in numerous other circumstances with computer data processing. Some people might claim that observance of hyphens is "petty" but millions in currency, plus years of work, have been lost by one-character changes in computer files. Harmony is not to be expected by ignoring those concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Wikid: wrong talkpage for this topic. Noetica^Tea? 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I disagree that overlooking the other related concerns will create harmony, just between wp:TITLE and wp:MOS, as if no other concerns would affect the harmony. Computer users have a long history about being extremely careful not to change keystrokes in data or names, and major disasters, such as the Mariner 1 launch, are a well-noted part of those concerns. -15:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikid77 (talk • contribs)

This is the wrong venue, and there is no dissonance between WP:AT and WT:MOS, only in your faulty cognition of how they operate. There is also absolutely nothing about dashes in article titles and prose that would have any effect on computer code, like the examples you're going on about, which are utterly irrelevant (this is a collection of articles, not a rocket launch control system). The only negative effect on harmony when it comes to dashes and hyphens is you and your little WP:GANG of editwarriors, Apteva (about to be topic-banned) and LittleBenW (already topic-banned for the same forum-shopping, browbeating tendentiousness on diacritics, and likely to get AN/I'd for a topic ban on this pseudo-issue, too, and probably a block, if he doesn't knock it off, and you'll probably be included, too). PS: The fact that after all this time you can't even remember not to italicize quotations simply for being quotations – a style not only expressly deprecated by MOS but one that basically does not exist at all, anywhere, outside of WP either – casts a very dark shadow over your attempts to lecture other editors about style matters. Please stop beating the WP:DEADHORSE and go do something constructive. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed tweak to first sentence of WP:UE

WP:UE is often misunderstood as use the English language appearing form (and not to consult English language usage) despite what the first sentence says. I think if it's emphasized in the examples with an explanation in conjunction, they will have much better teaching effect. I propose the following change:

Current:

The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence.

Proposed language:

The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., the non-anglicized titles, Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen are used since they predominate in English language reliable sources, but the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence are used since they predominate in English language reliable sources.

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That is fine except for me italicizing usage makes the sentence harder to read, so I would recommend against that. Apteva (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd support this, and the emphasis on "usage" is fine (and your main point), though really it should be done with {{em|usage}}. :-) I'm a bit concerned about the repetitive wording, though; the second "in English language reliable sources" can safely be dropped, with the sentence ending at "predominate". To nit-pick, the comma before Besançon isn't needed, either. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To further nit-pick, the absence of a serial comma after Søren Kierkegaard makes its use after delicatessen an inconsistency.  --My76Strat (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this change. The problem is that defining what is or is not anglicized opens up a can of worms is "hotel" an anglicized word? Is Paris an anglicized word? What about Zurich is that anglicized or taken from French and it was they who stripped the umlaut of its dots? Rhone anglicized or taken from Latin. What about Emily Brontë is that foreign or an affectation? If we keep it simple with the current wording we do not have to go down that rabbit hole, because we don't care if it is "anglicized" or foreign as we only care about usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - or something very much like it. This would bring WP:AT nearer to actual science (lexicography, linguistics) and nearer the realm of the normal editing behaviour of professional publishing. As it stands the wording fails to distinguish issue (1) the difference between exonyms and endonyms, and issue (2) the difference between high-MOS or low-MOS publishing sources. The existing wording also encourages editors to jump into a much bigger can of worms down a much deeper rabbit hole of counting sources to see whether something is mentioned in, for example, academic sources, or mass-market media. With the result that our articles lurch around depending on whether academic or mass-market mentions have the numerical majority. At the very least setting out the difference between (1) and (2) will make things less confused. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  The proposed wording (before and after the change) has nothing to do with what sources to use. -- PBS (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your opposition because it is ostensibly directed at the change, but your basis is directed at what was already present. It already said (and has for years) "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g.," and then had the list of examples, which were to illustrate that principle. The "change" only explained how the examples that followed the first sentence, and obviously were intended to be illustrative of that first sentence, did so. If you want to discuss changing the thrust here of what it already said, that would be another story. Your later criticism, that the explanatory language proposes the mechanics of looking at "reliable sources" to find English usage, that is true, but appears to be entirely separate from the first criticism. I can't understand why anyone would oppose that. Anyway, treating your criticism as to the import of the old language and the new language since there is no functional difference, I would ask that you explain better because nothing here asks anyone to try to figure out whether a usage is anglicized or not; this policy section doesn't care which it is. We care only about usage. Let's be concrete. One person says "I want to use Fubar as that appears to be English. The other person wants to use Foobhoàr because they say its the proper title in X language, or whatever. All this paragraph teaches is that while those are often opposing sides, it doesn't actually matter – use what English speakers use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Serial comma proofreading

Since the first serial occurrence on this page, "is short, natural, and recognizable", establishes positive use of the serial comma, it should be used throughout. Ironically, the very next occurrence, "Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view", fails that standard. I'm not the only wikipedian who respects the serial comma, and for us, I ask that this entire policy page be copy-edited for consistency. If wp:sofixit applies, say the word and I'm off to the races. Best, --My76Strat (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the serial comma is actually required in that case, or the meaning can be construed as "No original research and no Neutral point of view". I would say this is definitely a WP:SOFIXIT. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

COMMONSTYLE proposal

Based on favorable reception of the suggestion above in the section #The_well-established_harmony_between_WP:TITLE_and_WP:MOS for a "COMMONSTYLE" section to clarify the styling of titles should be in common with styling of text, I proposed adding something like this:

==Title styling==  {{shortcut|COMMONSTYLE}}
Article titles are styled in common with article text and headings, following guidelines 
in the WP:Manual of Style, in terms of capitalization, punctuation, italics, and such.

Is that enough? Does any more need to be said? Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I think this has already been around all the houses and found favour with all but Apteva and his cohorts. I would perhaps like to see diacritics mentioned, but I fear that will be opening up another can of worms. ;-) -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 05:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't say much beyond "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged," so mentioning it along with caps, etc., shouldn't be a problem. The point is the same. I don't see anything in TITLE that conflicts. Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer we be clear whether diacritics are covered, some wikijudging I've been forced into in the past has rested in part on the question of whether "stripping diacritics" can be considered a style. Because of that previous wikijudging, I'll abdicate stating a preference for whether it's explicit inclusion or exclusion, but I would prefer a clear determination. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A clear determination would be nice, but given how utterly divided the community is on their use, there is absolutely no way we can backdoor one preference or another into this proposal. The community has to decide a final position on diacritics before it can be expressed here. Otherwise, the only thing you will accomplish is to open up Ohconfucius' can of worms. Resolute 03:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A determination that diacritic-stripping is a style would simply make clearer the weak status quo that there isn't a global consensus and there'd still be a lot of local consensi and debating. It would, however, rob the continuing argument that existing policy evidences a preexisting consensus to always include or always exclude diacritics, and pull some of the venom out of the most eager partisans on both sides of the issue. That's far short of the central diacritic debate.

A determination that diacritic stripping was not a style would be consistent with the neutrality already present within the MOS, and would lend additional weight to those who believe that existing policies on article titles are determinative with respect to diacritics, however, both sides have arguments of this form, so it wouldn't really set out an answer, either.

Either way, you haven't actually answered the question, but you have narrowed the breadth of the argument involved. more so in the former case. Baby steps.

Anyway, I'll stop pushing on this thread, but I did want to explain that the situation was a little more complicated than I might have first implied. Feel free to hat this as a digression if you wish. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 03:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but the "and such" is a bit nebulous. —Neotarf (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but maybe leave off all of the "in terms of ...", or we'll get wikilawyering over anything not explicitly mentioned. — kwami (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

ha! even simpler, and better! -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think "following guidelines in the MOS" would sound better (more grammatical) as "following the guidelines of the MOS", but that's quibbling. — kwami (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, then I think we all agree so far that this version would be OK, let's take it up from here:

==Title styling==  {{shortcut|COMMONSTYLE}}
Article titles are styled in common with article text and headings,  
following guidelines in the WP:Manual of Style.

• Endorse -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Image captions? —Neotarf (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No need to bring that up at TITLE? Dicklyon (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is transparently a loophole to ignore usage in reliable sources.... It enables editors to ignore any outside styling or naming authority, in favor of in-house style. Even in areas where the outside authorities are the only authoritative source and every source follows them. It enables MOS editors to "fix" real-world practices they personally disagree with. Because they are convinced that the naming authorities know less about English language than them and wikipedia can fix their erroneous names (literally, in a message posted today). They can use wikipedia as a soapbox to change how the common name is spelled in the real world. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a loophole to bypass, nor assumption of errors in sources. Simply accepting that there are differences of style. In the same way that we ignore vanity capitalisations like "Chief Executive Officer", and dollar signs used in lieu of an 's', like for "Kesha". -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 13:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. See, for example, the artist formerly known as Prince, and other entities who/which use unusual symbols or "punctuation" in their name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• That is covered by COMMONNAME, reliable sources did not use his glif instead they referred to him as the artist formally known as Prince If they had commonly called him something else so should Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Opposed - I would agree that article titles should usually be styled in accordance with the MOS... but... there can be, and indeed are occasional exceptions. Article titles are determined by consensus... that consensus is formed by applying several basic principles (Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency). To help us to apply these basic principles we look to a few sub-concepts... for example: WP:COMMONNAME is a sub-concept of Recognizability. I would say the MOS (as it applies to titles) is essentially a sub-concept of Consistency. Ideally we apply all of these principles and sub-concepts at the same time... but ... As the policy states: It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus. In other words, if there is a consensus to favor Recognizability over Consistency, (ie WP:COMMONNAME over the MOS), this is absolutely OK (And of course the reverse may occur... if there is a consensus to favor the MOS over WP:COMMONNAME, that is also absolutely OK.) Which, if any, are given preference depends on the specific title in question, and can only be determined through consensus in a case by case, article level examination (it can not be mandated at a policy/guideline level). If there is disagreement and a consensus can not be reached, we widen the pool of opinion through an RFC, or take the dispute to RM. But consensus rules... and the consensus may well be (in a specific case) to ignore the MOS.

If we are to mention the MOS in this policy, we need to take all of this into account. The underlying theme of this policy is one of flexibility through consensus building... we need to fit any mention of the MOS into that underlying theme. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If we're in agreement on usually, maybe we can get consensus around what sort of exceptions there could be. Do you have some in mind, for example where styling according to the MOS would be in conflict with recognizability? Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the most likely exceptions would be cases were WP:COMMONNAME indicates the use of a specific title ... a title that might not be in line with the MOS. But I could also see a case where Naturalness was the issue (ie following the MOS would lead to something that was not natural). No, I don't have any specific examples in mind... it's just that the key to this policy is that Titles work on consensus, are thus we must be flexible in applying and weighing which of the different provisions discussed in the policy should be favored. Each article title has different issues to deal with and consider, and the factors that led us to favor one principle over another in one article, will not be relevant when we are determining the title of a different article. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as what WP does already anyway. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with or without the "in terms of . . .", and without prejudice to (possibly later) adding something to take care of occasional exceptions, as mentioned by Blueboar. It seems obvious that the MoS should also apply to the title. Any special considerations regarding titles can be detailled in the MoS.--Boson (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Blueboar. As far as I can tell this has come up because a style issue discussion on the MOS talk page of which hat multiple reliable sources explicitly say - continuing is the most recent section on the subject. I am not at all conformable with this statement "Reliable sources on astronomy are not reliable sources on English language usage" in that section by SMcCandlish, it seems to me to be a nanny knows best argument. As I said in the section #The well-established harmony between WP:TITLE and WP:MOS:-- What concerns me is the dismissal by some of the argument recently put forward on the MOS talk page of always ignoring an outside style in favour of an in-house style. The example given is that some professional bodies may mandate a style for the area where they are the world authority on the formation of the names to be used including the use of hyphens or dashes. If that style is followed by the majority of (non expert) reliable sources, then I think Wikipedia should be guided by the usage in reliable sources, and in that case Wikipedia guidance should be to follow the usage in reliable sources. -- If a external style is commonly used in non expert reliable sources, then it ticks at least two of the bullet points, Recognizability and Naturalness in which case Consistency (which in my opinion should only ever be applied when it does not contradict the other points) should give way. -- PBS (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar has declined to provide any example of a case where style consistency would work against recognizability or naturalness. Do you have one in mind? E. g. one where the consensus on how to style text in the article might not make a great title? Dicklyon (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

PBS, what does this have to do with the proposal? If we decide to use hyphens in comet names, wouldn't we do it in running text also? Why would we put hyphens in the title but use dashes in running text? The only point here is that we should use the same punctuation/capitalization in the title that we do in running text. Why is this a problem? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It would simply be ridiculous for us to style an article title differently from a mention of the same thing in the body of an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously, the body of the text would be updated to follow the new title. It should go without saying. Everyone agrees on this. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We do it in articles on cities and towns all the time (entitling the article with the modern name, but using any historical names in the body of the text when discussing the city or town in an historical context). Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

But he said "style". Using "New Amsterdam" in the New York City article isn't a change of "capitalization, punctuation, italics, and such", so it isn't style. And if there's a historical name that differs only in punctuation, an unwritten historical exception applies just as well to the MoS as to WP:TITLE. All the reasons to use hyphens in "Hale–Bopp", "Mexican–American War" etc. are also reasons to change the MoS. Art LaPella (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK... consider the following hypothetical... suppose we are writing an article on a rap musician who's real name is Joe Blow. During his carrier Joe has made several stylistic changes to his stage name ... starting as "J Blow", then using "JBLOW" (in all caps), then "J-BLOW" (with a dash or hyphen)... etc. We have several choices for the Article title (We might determine that the article title should be his real name "Joe Blow"... or we might decide to to go with his most recent stage name "J-BLOW" - despite the potential for a conflict with MOS over the hypen/dash issue. Or we might follow COMMONNAME and figure out which of his various stage names is most commonly used in the sources.) Whatever we chose for the title, we would use each variation in the text, as historically appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, sort of. Of course that is an unusual case, but we would want the title styled differently than part of the article. The more significant question is, should we style the title differently just because it's the title? MOS:TM would require "J-Blow" (or in the article, perhaps "J-Blow, stylized as J-BLOW") instead of J-BLOW, but I would think we would prefer "J-Blow" to "J-BLOW" in the title for the same reason. Art LaPella (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is it really that unusual? Arthur Rubin already cited that most notorious one of 'the artist formerly known as Prince'. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's usual, Prince (musician) isn't an example. Both the title and the article consistently call him "Prince". It calls him "Prince Rogers Nelson" once, it mentions the "Love Symbol" and shows it, and it mentions "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" and "The Artist", but uses "Prince" when simply referring to him. If styling is "capitalization, punctuation, italics, and such", it never calls him pRINCE, Prince!, or Prince. Same rule for the title as the article. Art LaPella (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Seems to be existing practice, and in theory should help avoid debates getting side tracked on the technicalities of policy vs guideline rehashing. If there are cases where consensus doesn't match the MOS, since like that would be the place to fix it as they probably should apply to section headers and the like as well. PaleAqua (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It should go without saying, but this should prevent more endless bickering. —Neotarf (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, you said support already before I changed the text of the proposal, so I'll take this as a confirmation that you like the change, not another vote. I agree that it will be nice to no longer have to hear the "guideline versus policy" theories, or how commonname is supposed to mean follow the style of sources. Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – A clear and concise description of current practice. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support an explicit clarification of the dovetailing roles of WP:MOS (with subpages) and WP:TITLE (with auxiliaries). These work harmoniously to settle choices in the content and styling of article titles. Quite rightly, very little in the development of WP:TITLE has addressed styling ("political" intrusions aside). Style on Wikipedia has always been the province of MOS. Because Wikipedia is developed collaboratively and consensually by volunteers, confusion is bound to arise from time to time. So yes, let's set out the complementary roles here, to match the statement at WP:MOS. Long overdue. Noetica^Tea? 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Omit needless complexity. (More clearly: our current consensus on the balance between style and naming issues, reflected here, sets a clear and effective line to good effect. Let us reap the benefits of that choice by clearly communicating that consensus, and avoiding drift into more drama-generating complexity than is necessary, useful or even desirable.) --j⚛e decker^talk 03:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I note that the majority of those who have opined (so far) are all active "regular" editors at WP:MOS (in fact, I may be the only one who isn't). Please note that there is nothing wrong with MOS regulars being involved on this page or in this discussion (indeed, a proposal like this should have a lot of input from MOS regulars)... but... I think we also need to hear from more editors who are not MOS regulars. As things stand right now, an analysis of who has responded could be subject to accusations of vote-stacking. I don't think that is actually the case, but I could easily see someone looking at who is participating and drawing that conclusion. If we bring in more people - people who are not MOS regulars - we can avoid that. Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a false dichotomy. It's not that there really is a species called MOS editors, and another called TITLE editors. A divisive prejudgement, perhaps. Me? I declare my interest in both areas, at the top of my talkpage. Many editing professionals might make such a declaration; and they are the most acutely aware of the interleaved separateness of content and style. They typically work with both, of necessity. This is the talkpage for WP:TITLE, so we can expect that those watchlisting the page will turn up and express an opinion. Why would they not support the proposal to clarify what is in fact inevitable? Anyway, Enric Naval is a voluminous commentator at WT:MOS, and opposes here (predictably!). Can't see the problem. No rush. The more participation, the better. As always. Noetica^Tea? 04:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've advised Blueboar to go ahead and add an RfC tag in response to his call for participation at VPP. I agree more eyes on the topic will be good, though one also needs to keep in mind that the community at VPP expressed a lot of apathy and impatience for these topics, so we may not get a bunch. Myself, I'm both an MOS and TITLE regular, with not so much as a 2X difference in edits in spite of an earlier start at MOS. I soon realized how they work together, and how attempts to keep them in conflict were used as a sort of workaround for MOS disagreements. I think we're on the verge of putting that era behind us. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, am certainly not a "MOS regular". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - particularly logic of Joe Decker about avoiding drift to more drama-generating complexity. And I would think I am less frequent here than many if not all, per Blueboar outside buy-in would be beneficial, but I suspect non WP:AT/MOS regulars are more not less likely to support? Is there something less protracted than an RfC tag on the top of this section like a "come give quick input in 3-4 days" type tag? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was not planning on commenting, but even though my views are well known it is pointless to say that without it being recorded. As I do a lot of work with titles I would not want to have to read through 142 pages (71 Title and 71 MOS) to decide the proper title, so I would ask that if there are any important styling issues that need to be followed in deciding a title, to create a page here as a naming convention instead – not an unreasonable suggestion, and of course it needs to agree with whatever the MOS says, as it is impossible to have two pages that are supposed to be consensus but disagree. And no I am not voting because of wanting anything any particular way. I just want to Keep It Seriously Simple. Plus it seems odd to have a policy defer to a guideline instead of the other way around – guidelines are expected to have far more exceptions than policies, so adding this would not accomplish the desired result. I am willing to strike this if anyone objects to me posting this, but I would not want to see this proposal included with even a couple of editors objecting. Nor would I like to see this be an XX vs. YY battle, in which case all but one of each votes are thrown out and we have a 1:1 stalemate. We are all here for the same purpose – to create a world class encyclopedia that we can all be proud of, and there is nothing urgent in deciding this issue – like everything else it is better to get it right than to rush to get it done (If you do not have time to do it right, what makes you think you have time to do it over?). Apteva (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)