Wikipedia talk:Names of articles on recent events: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:39, 5 December 2017

Why this page

This naming convention has been implicitly proposed at Talk:2015 Thalys train attack#Requested move 21 November 2017. If it is to be adopted, we should make that official. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s what I think. I mean, that’s what I find, as a reader. Applies to small randomish type events. I assume the titles are well short of 42 characters. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to clarify WHY this is necessary/useful. What we are typically talking about are 'recent news' articles. These are often not in the news long enough to have established a 'commonname', or that name is unclear during the time of greatest reader interest (the few years following the event). Typically we are talking about relatively short-term high profile events which often have the added complication that they will be much better known in the country in which the event occurred. 'Columbine school' has become notorious world-wide for a single event, but similar violent, but less 'famous' incidents, do not share the same 'reader recognition'. I can think of many European events where a similar problem applies in reverse. IMO, anything that helps 'place' the event chronologically, is a useful addition, so I would support this idea whenever the year is likely to be helpful to the reader. Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three examples from my watchlist, (2017 Westminster attack, 2017 Buckingham Palace incident and 2016 Normandy church attack), where IMO, the titles would be unacceptably vague, without the 'year' addition and in which no obvious alternative name could be used IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to formalize such as a guideline convention perhaps it may be worth considering having such articles place the disambiguator in parenthesis after the main title terms – as is done in so many other cases. I.e. Buckingham Palace incident (2017) rather than 2017 Buckingham Palace incident. With of course exceptions for instances where a date prefix has already been established in common usage. I recognize though that a tendency towards the prefixed form has already drifted into fairly common practice.

I think some sort of broader WikiP identity confusion may weave into this regarding NEWS/NOTNEWS ... It seems to me that regardless of long stated ideals regarding such, one might argue that to some extent WikiP has come to be treated as a news source; both by readers seeking current topical updates/summaries/aggregation and by editors seeking to swiftly provide such. Such tension between policy/ideal and practice in such matters seems to me an aspect of context for the title protocol considerations being brought up. Something to keep in mind perhaps. --–A Fellow Editor– 13:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The parenthetical qualifier seems preferable to me, although the reasons are a little fuzzy in my mind. It's something about "it's not part of the COMMONNAME, rather an appendage to it". It softens my COMMONNAME objection and likely would for other editors as well. That is, some editors; some will say that policy precludes "appendages" to the COMMONNAME. Yet another example of the contradictory principles that policy should inform consensus and policy is decided by consensus; a contradiction that seems designed to keep us perpetually chasing our tails. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of disambiguation, subject area and topic area. Parenthetical disambiguation (WP:PARENDIS) is topic area, when there is another article with the same name, to distinguish an article topic from another [topic]. However when the date is part of the title, it disambiguates from any other subject that may have occurred regardless if it has a Wikipedia article. Per WP:CONCISE sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area. This is the type of disambigation we are looking for when using dates, since there may have been other attacks in this town in France before (regardless if there is a WIkipedia article), the subject area needs clarification. -- GreenC 17:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think another factor to consider is how search suggestions and alphanumeric ranking in lists might handle prepend vs. append cases. Consider:

2017 Foo bar

2017 Tom tom

1932 Foo bar

... vs. ...

Foo bar (2017)

Foo bar (1932)

Tom tom (2017)

... for instance.

Seems to me that how stuff gets grouped by title will warrant some consideration in this. --–A Fellow Editor– 18:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether to have it or not

So far at least, the discussion above seems unanimous that the year should be incorporated into the title, a few noncommittal but no opposition. Andrewa (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Err, At ~7 hrs. in might the term "unanimous" be at risk of coming off as a bit over enthusiastic? Discussion seems to me kinda' brief and sparsely attended as yet. --–A Fellow Editor– 17:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not calling it a consensus as yet, and probably won't ever as I'm involved. But the meandering and still mislabeled section above is a but daunting, so I was hoping that anyone who does object would comment explicitly in this section. But instead they created #Why treat them differently? below. Just WP:5P5 in action I guess. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, "and still mislabeled" – then fix it. Quote from markup editor (emphasis added):

=== Starting section ===[1]

I just went for something relatively neutral as I kinda' presumed someone more invested might want to replace it with their own preference. My first impulse was to just repeat the level two heading above it, == Why this page ==, as a level three heading as well, === Why this page ===, but I figured the redundancy might irk someone (and complicate linking). Andrewa, change it to whatever suits you. You're the one who initiated the text below it after all. (p.s.— BTW, apologies for not noticing your comment before now.) --–A Fellow Editor– 00:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would fix it if I could think of how, but in view of the edits made since it was (IMO mis)labelled I haven't a clue. Best I think to take up any relevant points in an appropriately labelled section. Andrewa (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I've just commented out the heading. Andrewa (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

No edits to clarify the scope of the proposal as yet... did I get that right first shot, or can we improve on it? Andrewa (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking to actually change anything? Events guidelines already appear to imply that the 'year' addition should be used when it is helpful. It gives as examples 1993 Russian constitutional crisis (Rationale: there are no other "Russian constitutional crisis" articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier as constitutional crises reoccur, and other incidents in Russian history could be construed as a constitutional crisis.) and Chernobyl disaster (an examples of an events that is so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title). I don't think anyone has proposed that ALL events should use the year, simply that editors should be free to add the year whenever 'helpful to the reader' rather than 'when strictly necessary for disambig reasons'. Pincrete (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's controversial, so some would see it as a change and others of a clarification of the existing position. And who cares whether it's a change or a clarification? The point of all guidelines and policies is to save us time by not needing to build a new consensus for each individual case.

And that's my objective here. And simply having this discussion may have clarified it as much as we should try to... but I'm not convinced of that. I think it would be good to come to some sort of conclusion.

I don't think it matters much which way we go on this. Nobody is suggesting deleting the redirects from the other name, which if we go with the more concise name is a useful search term, and if we go with the more informative name is a primary redirect in all of the cases in question. It's no big deal.

But if we have another case of mass bold moves because the guideline is unclear to some, that is a big deal, and IMO avoidable. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This impacts an enormous number of articles

See this diff which says in part I reversed a wholly undiscussed mass-reversal of dozens of articles... When a decision has been made on an article that the year is a helpful identifier, what is this obsession with removing it... (low-level personal attacks removed). Andrewa (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t embark on mass renaming. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support no (more) mass renaming until this is settled. (Please don't violate the talk page guidelines regarding bullet points.) Andrewa (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why treat them differently?

I remain unconvinced that "articles on recent events" (and what exactly qualifies as recent?) should be treated any differently than other articles when it comes to the application of the WP:AT policy (specifically WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE). I dispute the rationale that "the year is helpful to the reader in identifying the article topic".

If the common names for these events are not good enough because they supposedly do not identify the topic clearly enough, what could one say about a title such as Omar Mateen? Surely "Thalys train attack" identifies the article topic better than "Omar Mateen" does. Mind you, Mateen too only recently became notable, yet we do not title the article about him Omar Mateen (American mass murderer). Should we?
If the intention really were to help the reader identify the article topic, then surely Thalys train mass shooting attempt would be much more helpful than 2015 Thalys train attack, yet this suggestion has gone entirely ignored. Judging by what Andrewa above termed "low-level personal attacks" and the "authorism philosophy" propagated there, it seems that the desire is to retain the year even at the expense of clearer identification, simply because those who support its removal are perceived as unqualified outsiders. Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Mateen is the name of a person and we don't disambiguate people unless there is another article with the same name. Thalys train mass shooting attempt is unnecessarily long, the date only adds 4 characters. It's also common to assign dates to events see 9/11. -- GreenC 17:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It comes to my mind to mention that either (or both) leading and trailing date disambiguators can be implemented as redirects for use during chaotic breaking news cycles while perhaps using something more closely aligned with most other articles as a main title. Thus the benefits to search and linking that might come with date disambiguation would be retained (without having to implement a new specialized format for a subclass of article titles). --–A Fellow Editor– 17:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna, as I've said at another discussion, but which you may not have seen, Thalys train mass shooting attempt is completely unacceptable for BLP and NPOV reasons. Last I heard, the accused in that case was still denying that it was anything other than a robbery or that he intended to do anything other than frighten people, and he still hasn't been tried. It is often the case that in the period of greatest interest (the months and years immediately following a crime), it isn't possible to give a title based on "what it appears to be/could well be/press is speculating it is". Pincrete (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unconvinced. But it doesn't do a great deal of harm either. My purpose in raising it as a proposal is mainly just to get it out of the way. Decide one way or another, so we can stop wasting time and energy on it. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that I find the year in titles on random events very helpful with regards to identifying the topic and deciding whether to download it. Most often, it is the hovertext information that I’m looking at. In terms of “concise”, which refers to information *density*, the five characters required to append the year, or the seven to paranthetically append the year, is easily justified. It often means other title words can be dropped. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am convinced that random use of bullet points is pure rantstyle. Andrewa (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are “convinced”? Without even asking. Rantstyle? That sounds unkindly intended, which is not your usual style.

I have been using this indentation style for longer that I have known you. I think I adopted it sometime after someone ranted at me twice about my use of <p>. I thought no it was breaking his browser, or causing his taps to drip through the night, or something.

It allows paragraphing with ease, under a single dot point. I find a single dot per post, regardless of paragraphs, improves readability. It especially helps when two people post at the same level to the preceding post. Without outlawed superlarge signatures, mere coloning causes one post to run into their next. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this indentation style consistent with wp:stringing (which reads in part Generally colons and asterisks should not be mixed) or any other guideline/information page/etc? I find it messy and unhelpful, but if there's consensus to use it, fine. But it seems to me that the historical consensus prohibits it, explicitly. Perhaps discuss elsewhere? Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - WP:stringing seems an obscure guideline routinely ignored, so I don’t feel bound by it. It reads like someone’s good ideas, but little more. I would prefer to concentrate on not being messy and unhelpful.
        Does the asterisk combined with <br/> carriage return codes work better for you. It seems to me to be consistent with wp:stringing, but it produces exactly the same output, but with the disadvantage of no paragraphing in the edit window. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The multi-dots produced by the previous post are your fault, not mine, because you answered my dot pointed post with colon indentation.
        Maybe you just don’t like dots? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Or maybe you just don't like following policies and guidelines? (Sigh) You wouldn't be the only one. But agree that those multi-dots are partly my fault. I admit I'm at a loss as to how to best respond to this use of a bullet point on a single comment (rather than in a bulleted list, which is the normal use of a bullet point). It seems to be just a way of emphasizing the point, and they do add extra weight to the comment, but that's perhaps not a good thing, and they sometimes lead to unintelligible messes if others follow the example. I don't like any violation of guidelines, unless there's either a prospect of consensus to change them and/or a benefit to Wikipedia, and I don't think either applies here. But I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the year helpful

From above I dispute the rationale that "the year is helpful to the reader in identifying the article topic". [2] I guess any extra information added to the title is helpful to the reader in identifying the article topic. But we can't put the whole article, or even the whole lead, into the title. So the question is, why is the year of the incident special, and is it special enough to override WP:CONCISE, which mostly works rather well? And I think the onus of proof is clearly on those who say it is special enough. Andrewa (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I became involved with "Thalys train" only to close the RfC on naming. That is one example where editors struggled to find a commonname, those outside France will probably remember it as "that attempted train attack in France where the US soldiers intervened". There probably is no concise memorable name which would satisfy a global readership. A few examples (from my watchlist) which IMO would be impossibly vague without the year are 2017 Westminster attack, now Westminster has been attacked innumerable times in the last 1000+ years, some terrorist, some wartime, some ... whatever. It so happens that none of those events has been given the commonname "Westminster attack", but how does the reader know that, or know that it is not an obscure chess strategy? Similarly 2016 Normandy church attack, refers to the murder of a priest at Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray last year. Editors decided that few outside France would remember the village name, but does 'Normandy church attack' refer to a recent event, an incident in WWII or something in the 1000+ year history of Normandy? There are many other similar 'event' articles on my watchlist, that I would defy anyone to identify in 10 years time without the minor 'memory nudge' which the year gives. Year does not identify, but it does help one to look in the right millenium, century and decade of one's memory. The underlying problem - as someone else remarked - is that we are writing 'news' articles - which IMO have not had time to actually acquire a commonname, we are therefore having to invent clear, neutral identifiers. Pincrete (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see extensive involvement by yourself at Talk:2015 Thalys train attack, but I'm not sure what you mean by to close the RfC on naming. The RfC was closed, but the closure was subsequently (and unsuccessfully) disputed by yourself, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to an earlier rename RfC (in the weeks/months immediately following the event) - ie which led to the year - event format. Closing+ executing the rename was my first involvement, though yes, it has been on my watchlist ever since. The RfC you link to had nothing to do with the article title. Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That RM is archived at Talk:2015 Thalys train attack/Archive 1#Requested move 25 August 2015 if anyone else is interested. I'd have called it an RM rather than an RfC, hence my confusion. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is one reason we have redirects. And if the concise, unambiguous name is never used explicitly in sources, there might be a case for having the extended common name as the article name, such as by adding the date. But that isn't the case with any of the examples yet given. Andrewa (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "concise unambiguous name" (ie without year) is often more commonly used than with the year addition, but that is because the articles we are typically talking about are reliant on news coverage written in the days and weeks immediately following a high profile 'news' event (why would they add year when 'last week/month' or 'in April' are clearer at the time?). Thus typical ways of establishing what is most commonname (google hits), are skewed towards the news coverage in the immediate aftermath of the event. I think we need to recognise that these events don't actually have an established 'commonname' in the sense that that term is used on WP, but that the article titles frequently are titled according to WP:NDESC. Pincrete (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent expression of your opinion. Are others happy to go with this? Andrewa (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Form of disambiguation

Perhaps this is putting the cart before the horse, but in the #Starting section above there's much discussion of this. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Year before the description

This is a form of natural disambiguation and the form of all the examples listed in the proposal so far, which is why I proposed that form. Does anyone want to speak in its favour here? Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It matches natural use, and suits wikilinking. Eg. Following the 2015 Thalys train attack the media increased coverage of national security issues. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"... and suits wikilinking." – As would similarly titled redirect pages. --–A Fellow Editor– 12:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is preferred and natural method. It identifies the "subject area" per policy WP:CONCISE, it helps a person familiar with the subject area to identify the topic of the article. For example, if I know of other attacks in a city, which have no Wikipedia articles, I need help to identify which attack this article is about because I am a person familiar with the subject area (ie. attacks in this city or terror attacks in general) and the title should help me to identify the topic. -- GreenC 14:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Are others happy to go with this? Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical disambiguation

This is suggested above as the preferred alternative of some. Does anyone want to support it here, and/or give examples of where it's already in use? Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The parenthetical has become a Wikipedia obsession. It can be considered ed a workaround for subtitling, but is very strongly associated with disambiguations, so much so that many editors will instinctively assume that’s its only purpose. For this reason, I don’t prefer it. Also, it requires seven characters, whereas the leading year adds only five. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the core argument for adding such dates to titles (whether leading or trailing) was to make them more distinct from other stuff similarly named – either existing or potentially arising? I.e. to disambiguate* them to some degree.

Also, please consider how leading dates may affect ordering and how such might figure into one's calsulus.

*[sidenote: I'm feeling that the word "disambiguation" might be getting burdened by some parsing tension between common general English usage and specified connotations picked up as 'term-of-art' in Wikipedia editor usage. Trying to consider both.]

--–A Fellow Editor– 12:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:disambiguation seems entirely consistent with our usage, although there is a sense in which it has also become jargon eg wp:disambiguation page. Andrewa (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The parenthetical method is not preferred because that method is used to disambiguate from other Wikipedia articles ~~only~~ generally. The date here is used for reasons explained in WP:CONCISE, to to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area. "Subject area" includes all terror attacks not just those with a Wikipedia article. -- GreenC 15:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The parenthetical method is not preferred because that method is used to disambiguate from other Wikipedia articles only." – says GreenC. Is there any established community consensus stating that parenthesis may "only" be used in titles when another article already exists with the same name? I so, please quote and link to it. I.e. 'citation needed'. --–A Fellow Editor– 16:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally that is what parenthetical means. It also carries over to bot tools and templates which interpret the trailing parenthesis as being a disambiguation and not part of the title itself. They will strip off the trailing parenthetical when needing to determine the core article title. -- GreenC 16:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally that is what parenthetical means." – Huh? What, specifically, is? I'm having difficulty interpreting that as a response to my request that you back up your assertion.

As to bot tools and templates ... I can see value in giving some thought to how such—as currently implemented—handle various title formats. Though I don't necessarily see any decisive factor in it as yet. Presumably they would only trim the trailing parenthetical off from the displayed text, right? The links they present will still target the correct page (with its distinguishing parenthetical in place in the title). And if they're piping from the actual title—and not a redirect—the disambiguated title will still show as hover text. So something to consider but not a 'deal breaker' in-and-of itself, IMO.

BTW, FWIW, I'd be fine with having a trailing date after a comma rather than in parenthesis – which might address bot/template automation concerns. It's having the qualifying follow rather than lead that seems preferable to me in most cases (unless of course there's a clear common usage/common name otherwise established in sources). Somewheresville potluck incident, 2017 rather than, 2017 Somewheresville potluck incident. I guess a possibility of Potluck incident, Somewheresville, 2017 arises as well depending on context. But taken to such a level I can start to see how 2017 Somewheresville potluck incident might appear more streamlined in comparison.

--–A Fellow Editor– 19:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was not more clear, replace "only" with "generally" (done). It's in the policy on disambiguation which largely concerns topic area disambiguation (vs. subject area covered on CONCISE). -- GreenC 03:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other forms

Just for completeness. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

eg Thalys train attack, mmxv.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ Ha! (made me smile, SmokeyJoe; tnx) --–A Fellow Editor– 12:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal status

We can't call a consensus to adopt his proposal or a variation of it on the discussion to date, IMO. (But I'm involved of course.)

Ways forward:

Develop the proposal further.
Propose it formally by an RfC.
Forget about it and follow the existing guidelines (which IMO means removing dates not needed for disambiguation, leaving redirects of course).

Comments? Preferred way forward? Other options I haven't listed? Andrewa (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep saying, WP:CONCISE says sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area - "subject area" is all terror events not just those with a Wikipedia article. The date is useful for that purpose. There are two types of disambiguation, between other articles (you are right not needed) and between "subject area" where it is often needed. -- GreenC 15:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I begin to understand I think. There may be some ambiguity in the guideline itself. It has generally been interpreted to mean just the first sort... WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate reads in part Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. But you're saying that there are other circumstances in which it may not be required but is helpful. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good analogy was made by someone else in one of the related discussions whereby US place names always include the state, even when the place name is unique. I think some of the rest of our naming habits are also unhelpful eg Westminster attack would be much clearer, but longer, as Westminster terrorist attack, as would many similar articles. One of the reasons this happens I think, is that often it isn't possible to characterise an event immediately. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the reasons this happens I think, is that often it isn't possible to characterise an event immediately." – I was just having similar thoughts ... I'd probably be 'ok' with even the leading year form (that already seems to have gained some popularity in practice) if somewhere in relevant guidelines it was explicitly stated that such may later be considered to have been a 'placeholder'– not able to make claims of primacy and status quo if a move to a new title gets proposed—perhaps one inspired by the public-at-large (as as indicated in more recent sources) eventually settling on a relatively consistent common name. --–A Fellow Editor– 00:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and WP:NAMECHANGES already handles this to some extent, particularly if we word the proposed new guideline with it in mind. I'm both flattered and disappointed that there has been so little editing of my proposal so far. [3] Surely we can collaboratively improve on it? Andrewa (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly it's unclear there should be policy as the current method of using RMs works. What should be regulated is no mass bold moving, which is already regulated per WP:RM which states controversial moves should be discussed first. The evidence for controversy is strong :) Perhaps this should be an essay to that effect, including links to older RMs and maybe summarize various arguments either way. This gives editors maximum freedom on a per article basis, and creates a hurdle for users trying to mass move to the "right" name. I won't oppose continued work on a policy, but not yet convinced there should be regulation. -- GreenC 14:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see where it leads. Early days yet. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

Let me suggest that there are a few things that we should agree on... at a sort of meta level.

We currently have 20 examples, 17 with dates in the titles and three without.
All of them are currently controversial.
- Some editors strongly support removing the year from all of them.
- Other editors strongly support adding the year to all of them.

With me so far? Are those statements all clear and agreed? Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, some editors don't believe there is a one size fit all solution. As some editors have said in the RMs, it's the obscure events that benefit from dates while the more famous events are less so because they are recognizable enough without a date. Where that line is crossed, between famous and obscure, is a matter of opinion... -- GreenC 15:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And some perhaps all of these editors would have strong opinions opposing both of these one size fits all solutions. (I might even be one of them.)

Can you be more specific?

Are any of the 20 examples we have obscure events?
Are any of them not obscure?
Are there other examples that we should add to the lists, to help avoid simplistic solutions that fit the cases we have but inappropriate for scenarios we might otherwise have overlooked?

But a very good point. Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on the reader

What puzzles me about this is, the impact on the reader seems minimal if that. Whichever article title we choose, there will be a redirect from the other. There's no suggestion of POV, undue weight, original research, COPYVIO, BLP violations, or any of the other sins that we rightly take very seriously.

The only significant impact of this is that it distracts editors from improving articles and other more productive pursuits. Our time is a limited and precious resource. This then in turn impacts the reader of course.

Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time-wasting is an argument either way. Articles won't have redirects if the custom of 'year-naming' is dropped, or disapproved of. Pincrete (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I don’t get what the interest is with redirects. Wikilinking should not be through redirects but through piping. Redirects do little for searching. The Wikipedia search engine improved past that need ten years ago. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This contradicts MOS:REDIR. There are reasons to pipe, and reasons to use redirects, according to circumstances. So is there any policy or guideline that supports your sweeping claim that Wikilinking should not be through redirects but through piping?

Contradicts MOS:REDIR?? What are you talking about? Nonsense? MOS:REDIR says nothing of substance that can be contradicted. Linking though piping allows for hovertext to indicate the linked page. Linking to redirects creates hovertext misinformation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is missing something here. MOS:REDIR currently reads in part Let's assume for example you needed to link "poodle", and there was no article for poodles yet. You might want to create a redirect from "poodle" to "dog" as follows... The result should be: #REDIRECT Dog... The advantage of redirects over piped links is... (my emphasis, and ... of course indicates text I've omitted for brevity). Do you really think that's compatible with your view that Wikilinking should not be through redirects but through piping (my ermphasis again)? There is a place for both, and the MOS quite clearly assumes this, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That advantage of redirects over piped links is an old hack for finding wanted articles. I don;t think it is of much value any more. It has the disadvantage of misleading a reader/editor as to what article is being linked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your search results are a puzzle. When I search on Thalys one of the list is Thalys attack (and if we create Thalys attack, 2015 as I think we should, then I expect that would come up too). Similarly when I search on 2015 Thalys one the hits is 2015 Thalys attack. What do you get? Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Is there any policy or guideline to prevent their creation? If they're a likely search term, there would be no case for deletion, so it would seem rather illogical. Andrewa (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think these contributions may explain a lot. If these redirects were in any way discouraged, then both sides would have a point, because it would then matter a great deal which name we chose.

But IMO policy and guidelines should and do encourage their creation. That's one reason I say, no big issue.

It seems to be a common misconception that redirs are some sort of problem. I regularly see baseless requests to suppress the redir in RM discussions. That's one very good reason we don't let all users suppress redirect creation. Andrewa (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t follow your lines of thinking. Why are you makin oblique references to my posts? Redirects are cheap. I don’t know what you’re talking about about suppression of redirects. I doubt that redirects are relevant to these discussions on this talk page and invite you to explain. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that redirects are cheap. This is one reason that suppression of redirects is restricted, and deletion of redirects discouraged in most cases. I'm certainly not trying to make oblique references to your posts or anyone else's. I think I follow your line of thinking, but I also think I see some gaps in your logic. Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I had explained it, but since you invite it maybe I should try again. Redirects are relevant because, in the cases we're discussing, they should always exist, and this blows many of the arguments that readers are somehow disadvantaged by our choice of title right out of the water. There is no problem to solve so far as reader experience goes. However, many editors (such as yourself) seem unaware that these redirects should exist and should be used. Andrewa (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Andrewa, I’m afraid I completely don’t understand. What do redirects have to do with the reader experience? I have often listed several uses of redirects when arguing a page should not be deleted but converted to a redirect, but none of the relate to “reader experience”. Can you give an example? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sidenote: FWIW, the interleaving above (fragmenting of another's comment with interstitial sub-responses out of timestamp order) reminds me of why I so, so, strongly prefer to see folks just give a referential quote instead (e.g. ".. regarding "Blah bla bla ...", etc., ...") in their own separate following comment, if needed for clarity. While I imagine it may seem cohesive to two editors whose minds were involved in a direct exchange while forming such, I find it obfuscating (or at least awkward) for third-parties like myself to come by and parse it after-the-fact. --–A Fellow Editor– 14:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is another unresolved and current controversy. For my part, I find your use of a single asterisk (rather than as part of a bulletted list, which is I think its proper use) both unhelpful and contrary to guidelines. But many editors do it and strongly defend their right to do so. It may be a right brain/left brain thing, or indicate some similar variation in the way we're thinking. Wikipedia is a collaboration, and studies tend to show that various ways of thinking in a team enhance its effectiveness, so this is probably a good thing. But it can be annoying! To me too! Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precedents

A good analogy was made by someone else in one of the related discussions whereby US place names always include the state, even when the place name is unique. [4] Pincrete, can you link to that related discussion? I included that very point in my second still stuby draft of the proposal [5] thinking I was being original. If others have already expressed the same view, that increases our chance of consensus on this a great deal, IMO.

Are there other precedents? Thinking caps on, everyone. Andrewa (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, Derrr, I don't remember where I read it, there have been 3 or 4 related discussions recently. It might even have been your draft and I was too daft to remember! Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been watching them all, so I feared as much... I know the feeling. But the point is well made that there are consensus-supported precedents for being flexible because WP:CONCISE doesn't bring the best reader experience, and that's important, and maybe I should have emphasised it more than I did. And I doubt that they're all US place names, and it would be really good to find others. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

We've now had added some examples of recent removal of the date:

00:23, 21 November 2017‎ Surtsicna (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (24,335 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Surtsicna moved page 2016 Würzburg train attack to Würzburg train attack: unique event, no need for disambiguation (WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE)) [6]
10:19, 21 November 2017‎ Surtsicna (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (17,642 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Surtsicna moved page 2015 Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack to Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack over redirect: restoring original title; no need for disambiguation (WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE))
00:09, 21 November 2017‎ Surtsicna (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (7,241 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Surtsicna moved page 2016 Wilkinsburg shooting to Wilkinsburg shooting: unique event, no need for disambiguation (WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE))

but these all seem to be bold, undiscussed moves.

It means that we now have examples of current article titles both with and without the date.

Are there any examples of RM results one way or another? Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure there are RMs that go the other way, from no date to date.

In general, there is no clear consensus .. the consensus is "it's controversial". Controversial moves are supposed to have RMs per WP:RM ie. no bold moves. I explained this to Surtsicna who has ceased making mass bold moves. In a way, this solves the problem - deal with it page by page via RM discussion and no mass moving. -- GreenC 14:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 ::::: Contradicts [[MOS:REDIR]]??  What are you talking about?  Nonsense?  MOS:REDIR says nothing of substance that can be contradicted. Linking though piping allows for hovertext to indicate the linked page. Linking to redirects creates hovertext misinformation. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 12:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 ::::::One of us is missing something here. MOS:REDIR [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking&oldid=811826554#Redirects currently] reads in part ''Let's assume for example you needed to link "poodle", and there was no article for poodles yet. You might want to create a redirect from "poodle" to "dog" as follows... The result should be: #REDIRECT [[Dog]]... The '''advantage of redirects over piped links''' is...''  (my emphasis, and ... of course indicates text I've omitted for brevity). Do you really think that's compatible with your view that ''Wikilinking should '''not''' be through redirects but through piping'' (my ermphasis again)? There is a place for both, and the MOS quite clearly assumes this, IMO. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 22:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
+::::::: That advantage of redirects over piped links is an old hack for finding wanted articles.  I don;t think it is of much value any more.  It has the disadvantage of misleading a reader/editor as to what article is being linked.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 ::::And your search results are a puzzle. When I search on ''Thalys'' one of the list is ''[[Thalys attack|Thalys attack]]'' (and if we create ''[[Thalys attack, 2015|Thalys attack, 2015]]'' as I think we should, then I expect that would come up too). Similarly when I search on ''2015 Thalys'' one the hits is ''[[2015 Thalys attack|2015 Thalys attack]]''. What do you get? [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 11:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 :::Why not? Is there any policy or guideline to prevent their creation? If they're a likely search term, there would be no case for deletion, so it would seem rather illogical. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)