Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Using a . to distinguish an article

Discussion at Talk:Gangsta. and similar has recently often been citing the misleading advice given at WP:SMALLDETAILS: @Many such differences involve capitalization, punctuation, accentuation, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Airplane and Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey; The World Is Yours and The Wörld Is Yours." ... but this advice is patently not what en.wp does. Generally small details like . ! or an umlaut are usually not considered recognizable or distinctive because they aren't used consistently in WP:RS, --- such as Shakira (album) and Janet (album), while Airplane and Airplane! are giant visible exceptions in the same way that Friends and Windows are giant visible exceptions to our plurals titling practice. I know that there are a couple of shortest-title-at-all-cost activists on this page who are dead set against titles being recognizable. But I hope most of the editors here have enough common sense to know that a dot is not a good way of disambiguating Gangsta from Gangsta other topics. As other . examples have shown. Can we please introduce examples of majority cases into WP:SMALLDETAILS ahead of the minority famous exceptions? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to include counter-examples, although it's not a majority-minority issue. With small details, as with many other titling questions, there is no way to generalize. Sometimes an exclamation point is sufficient to distinguish one title from another, sometimes not. Whether it is is something we decide article by article. Maybe we could take a couple examples, with a sentence along the lines of "Sometimes, a small detail is not enough to distinguish two titles. In that case, parenthetic or other disambiguation is preferred. Ex. [[Sample (example)]], not [[Sample.]]. If the version with the small difference is a unique title, it should redirect to the article in question; if it is not unique, it may redirect to a disambiguation page." Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There's also an issue that for some of these ! and . articles there just are no English sources because the ! or . is from Japanese. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on readers' technical issues, a terminal period is always not good enough to disambiguate from the matching title without the terminal period because many applications ignore, or remove, terminal periods, which is as they should do because use in text sometimes adds terminal periods. Also, the visual difference is too small. Similarly, terminal commas, colons, semicolons and a bad idea. Question marks (?) and hashes (#) have another technical problem, meaning that if they can't be avoided, the matching title without the question mark should redirect. I think if these occur mid-title, a workaround is required. Underscores in place of spaces similarly are not good enough. The explanation mark, and quotations, are best avoided, but are OK if there is a good reason for them. And then there are genuine ambiguities, such as commonly argued concerning plurals.

I think the criteria for SMALLDETAILS needs to be (1) the detail is not so small that readers won't overlook that detail; and (2) browsers and other applications won't interpret or interfere with the url due to unusual title characters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Underscores and spaces are interpreted the same way, so you cannot have titles that differ only by spaces being replaced by underscores. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC).

As said before, the problems with WP:SMALLDETAILS result from when Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) was folded into the WP:AT policy some years ago. The "summary" of that guideline, as kept in WP:AT, largely missed the point, at least it missed the needed nuance. So I've unfolded Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) (again), and added a boilerplate to that guidance in the SMALLDETAILS section. If the guideline works better to address the issues mentioned in this section, either please keep the guideline, or see to it that it gets a better summary in WP:AT. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe's statement above about the detailed being overlooked. I agree that at full stop at the end of a title is not enough to distinguish it, and as most people who search for a subject from outside Wikipedia will use search engines, it is unlikely that a search engine will make such a distinction. One of the reasons for titles is to place articles close to the top of a search and AFAICT a Google search does make a distinction between "Aeroplane" and "Aeroplane!". A Google search of ["Aeroplane!" film] returns the Wikipedia article as number two in the list. A search of ["Aeroplane" film] does not (instead it returns Hawaizaada). So I think this needs further discussion. Does the distinction of "Aeroplane" "Aeroplane!" meet "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."

-- PBS (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that very minor and easily overlooked or omitted elements like a dot/period shouldn't be considered sufficient to make otherwise identical titles consistently distinguishable. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I do run some tests from time to time on mainspace titles that vary only by a terminal full-stop. I could extend this and produce a report. But it's pretty rare that they are not all pointing to the same article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC).

• WP:SMALLDETAILS needs to state that "and" vs "&" is a non-distinguishing small detail. Anyone object? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – micromanagement, not the level of detail needed on a policy page. Can you give an example of where this has lead to issues? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call & a too-small detail at the level of common terminal punctuation. I agree that Ps & Qs and Ps and Qs are not sufficiently different, but that it is because "&" and "and" are similes used interchangeably, it is not a matter for WP:SMALLDETAILS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As any editor that spends significant time at WP:RM will realise that this squarely covers a very common and time wasting type of issue. The RM discussions, as far as I can remember, always go one way and yet other editors regularly create infringing articles so as to waste yet more editor time.

In ictu oculi would it be acceptable to you for WP:SMALLDETAILS to say something such as: "and" vs "&" is not typically considered to be a non-distinguishing small detail? While I agree with the generalities of the "rule" I can imagine that there may be exceptions. GregKaye 08:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Gangsta. is to me not an example for WP:SMALLDETAILS. The dot is too small for SMALLDETAILS, but it doesn't apply becuase there is no Wikipedia article Gansta. That title is in fact a disambiguation page that very clearly points to "Gangsta., a Japanese manga and anime series" amongst the many other similar things. Disambiguation pages are fanatasitic things for anyone not part of the dominant group. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • SMALLCAPS applies whether it regards a disambiguation page or not, see The World Is Yours, example included in the policy. I don't even quite understand the rationale ("Disambiguation pages are fanatasitic things for anyone not part of the dominant group") why you think it would be better to change the policy on this point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You seem slightly aggressive, I don't know why. I think I even generally agree with your posts?

It is my opinion that the lower limit of how small a difference is admitable as a SMALLDETAILS is not so important of the difference in between an article and a disambiguation page. I am not aware that this implies any change to policy.

Disambiguation things are fantastic for assisting with navigation to unusual things, and going to a disambiguation because of a misread of a small detail is not a concern of much consequence, as the disambiguation is a lite page that includes a clear and simple link to the page that you did want. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, still can't parse the distinction you're trying to make. Also, why SMALLDETAILS wouldn't apply in your opinion in the case of Gangsta., while it meets what is described in the policy – The World Is Yours/The Wörld Is Yours (the example in the policy) and Gangsta/Gangsta. appear as perfectly comparable pairs imho?--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

SMALLDETAILS only applies to articles. Disambiguation pages are not articles. The World Is Yours is not an article. If someone wanting The Wörld Is Yours (an article on an album) goes to The World Is Yours (a disambiguation page) instead, they have not gone to the wrong article. Probably, it is easier for many to go via the DAB page than to enter the umlauted letter. "Is" should not be capitalized, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_13#Capitalization_of_Copula_.28linguistics.29. Note how often the is is not capitalized in sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet the "...The World Is Yours and The Wörld Is Yours..." is an example in the policy. Even if that example only applies to the The Wörld Is Yours part of the example then still Gangsta. is a similar example. Still don't understand the confusion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Francis, Yes, "The World is Yours" is not a good example. They are not two articles differing by only a small difference. I think that example should be removed.

Sorry, I really haven't given enough care to this. As a deliberate point, I refuse to be excessively drawn on matters I do not think are very important for the encyclopedia, and I have decided that these matters include albums and manga. The debate here involves both!

I agree with the consensus that I sense here, that a terminal period is too small, and should be excluded as a SMALLDETAIL.

I agree I think with you that too much, too-specific, guideline material has crept into this policy.

I note that as Rich Farmbrough says, in almost all cases, where there is an article foo., foo redirects to foo., d as a consequence this (Using a . to distinguish an article) is a non-issue. It would be intersting to see a list of exceptions. Where foo is a disambiguation page, I thnk the exception is a non-issue.

The principle I am adhering to is: Readers should not be unexpectedly taken to the wrong article, but there is little problem with being taken to a disambiguation page if there is ambiguity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Still opposing your way of formulating it "...that (whatever) is too small, and should be excluded as a SMALLDETAIL..." Whatever the guidance and how it is written, its scope is small details. As said, writing guidance about small differences, except when the differences are small is not a sensible approach, it's just meaningless confusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Francis, actually I agree with you, I was not focused on how to formulate it. Actually, I think this policy page is the worst presented of all policy pages, and if given free reign on fixing it, I wouldn't know where to start. It is ill-structured, is repetitive, contains circular definitions, and has very confusing overlap with a similarly badly presented guideline, Wikipedia:Disambiguation. It contains many nuanced concepts, and feels no need to justify or explain. The examples don't help. As a rule of thumb, if examples are needed, it is because the explanations fail. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is my take on this... I tend to agree that dots (periods, whatever you want to call them) are not the best form of disambiguation - I think they are too small a detail to properly distinguish one article title from another (unlike other characters, they are very hard to see... and almost impossible to see on mobile devices)... yes SMALLDETAILS does allow them ... and I think they should continue to be allowed (because I always want to keep my options open... there may well be one or two cases where using such a dot is our only real choice, and disallowing them would cause more problems than it would solve). However, what is "allowed" is not the same as what is "best". In the specific case of Gangsta. vs Gangsta (mangia), I am inclined to favor parenthetical disambiguation... because I simply think using a parenthetical is better than using what I think is an (overly) small detail. Both are "allowed"... but one is better than the other in my editorial judgement. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you think the policy needs to be updated to allow Gangsta (manga), or do you think it is allowed by the current SMALLDETAILS policy? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No... Gansta (manga) is already "allowed" under the parenthetical disambiguation section of the policy. It has nothing to do with SMALLDETAILS, so I would not mention it there. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As one of the people most involved with WP:SMALLDETAILS... honestly, yes, I think a period is so easy to miss, people could get confused. That does lead to the somewhat nonsensical situation where Gangsta. would of course redirect to Gangsta. (manga), which makes no sense, either. I would support a simple exception to WP:SMALLDETAILS that excludes periods from the policy simply because they're too small to see, but I would strongly oppose the general application of that exception to other differentiators, like in Airplane!. Red Slash 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The policy is, or should be, about what to do when the typographical differences are hard to distinguish, in the case the expressions have a different meaning. Having a policy that says something about differences that are hard to distinguish, except in the case when they are hard to distinghuish amounts to WP:RULECRUFT. Why then would we have the policy in the first place? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Red Slash, you have a problem with Gangsta. redirecting Gangsta. (manga)? Why? What problem does this pose? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

One thing I want to point out is that 'could' does not necessarily mean 'should'. Small details can be used to disambiguate article titles, but it does not mean that it is encouraged. I think it would be better to explicitly state whether using small details for natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation or other forms of disambiguation that involves using longer titles. This alone would solve many problems. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Contributors to article name related discussions

• Comment Here are some statistics that may give some indication in regard to editor involvement in regard to the naming of articles.

In the month of July 2015 edits at a "== x ==" level in "Requested move" threads:

were made on 8 occasions among 208 edits by Blueboar

were made on 13 occasions among 750 edits by Francis Schonken with these edits being made on two occasions on a single thread

were made on 124 occasions among 341 edits by GregKaye

were made on 141 occasions among 1951 edits by In ictu oculi

were made on 19 occasions among 616 edits by PBS

were made on 57 occasions among 279 edits by Red Slash

were made on 39 occasions among 335 edits by SmokeyJoe

My perception is that there are editors that make contribution at WT:AT that have relatively little involvement with WP:RM while there are many editors that have regular involvements at WP:RM that have little or no involvement here. I do not think that this is any where near an ideal situation.

Can I please request editors to let colleagues who are getting on with the work of Wikipedia get on and do it.

GregKaye 11:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that someone is heavily involved here at AT does not mean they have to get involved at RM (or vise-verse). AT is where we set out the generalized policy and guidance about how to title articles... RM is where we apply that generalized policy and guidance in an attempt to reach consensus about specific article titles. Speaking for myself (and no one else), I feel that I can contribute meaningfully to discussions here at AT (which are focused on the generalizations) ... but I often don't know enough about the specific topics to contribute meaningfully in RM discussions (which focus on the specifics). I leave applying the policy (which involves discussing specifics) to those who know the individual topics better than I do. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The view that I certainly hold is that "generalized policy" is there to support the smooth running of general practice. Please consider getting better in touch with this. At times I have found various theoretically generated perspectives here to be quite helpful but when I have seen vetos, oppositions and reverts for the sake of reverts I have had to wonder whether people here have had any clue as to what they were doing or why. I personally do not think that Wikipedia is a place for armchair generals. If this fits, please be involved. GregKaye 13:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Converting to percentages and sorting...

• 36% edits by GregKaye
• 20% edits by Red Slash
• 12% edits by SmokeyJoe
• 7% edits by In ictu oculi
• 4% edits by Blueboar
• 3% edits by PBS
• 2% edits by Francis Schonken

Is the point that GregKaye is the best and his opinions should be given the most weight?

I observe that the percentages don't add up to 100%. Should I have scaled them? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Possible restoration of guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)

Should the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) guideline be restored or remain the redirect it has been for most of the time since 30 October 2009? most recently restored version -- PBS (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

History of the redirect and restoration

• 14:27, 30 October 2009‎ Kotniski (redirecting to merged guideline where all this is covered, per talk)
• 22:00, 9 November 2009‎ Francis Schonken (there was no consensus for this)
• 08:20, 10 November 2009‎ Kotniski (undo - consensus was certainly reached on this (see multiple naming convention talk archives))
• 23:53, 16 February 2012‎ Jc37 (restore for illustrative purposes)
• 02:40, 13 April 2012‎ Born2cycle (Restore as redirect per consensus reached years ago about avoiding duplicate guidelines - see edit summaries in history)
• 10:36, 1 July 2014‎ Francis Schonken (Undid revision 487105621 by Born2cycle (talk) apparently new discussions emerged where this may be useful, see WT:NC#What should decide titles? initiated by Born2cycle)
• 19:15, 1 July 2014‎ PBS (Rv to last version by B2C. Reverting a change that is two years old without a new talk page consensus is not appropriate. Gain a consensus at talk WP:AT before making such a change)
• 08:21, 21 July 2015‎ Francis Schonken (Undid revision 615193695 by PBS (talk) per discussion at WT:AT#Using a . to distinguish an article)
• 09:05, 21 July 2015‎ PBS (Undid revision 672396442 by Francis Schonken (talk) I have started an RfC on WP:AT see RfC: Possible restoration of guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)

--PBS (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose separate guideline - we do sometimes need separate topic related "naming conventions" - as some topics have unique factors that impact how we balance the five basic criteria ((Recognizability, Naturalness, Conciseness, Precision and Consistency) to find the best title for subjects within that topic area. However, Precision isn't a topic related issue... It is one of the five basic criteria we strive for in every title. As such, it should be covered in the AT policy itself. Indeed, creating a separate guideline would be a huge mistake... as the inevitable instruction creep takes hold, having a separate guideline will inevitably lead to having conflicting instructions (with the policy saying "do X" and the guideline saying "do Y".)

So... if there is a question about how best to achieve Precision, it needs to be hashed out here and once we reach a consensus, the policy can then be amended accordingly. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with Bluboar. It makes sense to integrate guidelines, not to fragment them. I took a look at the precision page and thought it needed a bit of copy-editing; some of the examples look suboptimal, too. Tony (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather than wait for the outcome of the RfC ,after my revert of his edit SF, has reverted my revert. Consequently the text you are looking at is the result of this revert which is a fragrant breach of WP:BRD and based on text that is five years old. -- PBS (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose separate guideline - per Blueboar. Having the same guideline presented in two places has no value that I can see, certainly not in this case, and is asking for trouble. --В²C ☎ 16:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose separate guideline (proposer) - done without it for 5 years, it does not add anything but the trouble of trying to keep the two in harmony. -- PBS (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose separation per B2C and friends Red Slash 20:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment It should be noted that the RM at Talk:Gangsta. appears to not be achieving any kind of consensus; to the contrary. So even a title that differs from others by the smallest possible detail (a period) is deemed acceptable by the community; policy should reflect that. --В²C ☎ 02:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Before I support or oppose (I'm on the fence due to past vs present guideline precedence), I'm wondering what the hubbub is about. We have innumerable essays. And we have many many guidelines which are essentially better explanatory pages of a section of a policy. WP:PRECISION was its own page a long time. And the merging of this and other pages apparently ended up being an arbcom case where sanctions were added. So basically, my question is this: why is this important? This "feels" like a POV is being pushed here. What's the issue? Are we really debating whether it's better to have a single but lengthy policy page or many but shorter policy pages? I'm asking just so it's clear. - jc37 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. "what the hubbub is about", the hubbub is about the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) guideline never being correctly transferred to the WP:AT policy page (when it was decided in a talk page discussion with very few participants it would be merged in). The differences are minor, and in most cases (the ones that can be handled according to the Airplane/Airplane! example) there is no difference. The ones that are better treated according to the Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem/Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem principle (like the one this section began about) appear every now and then, and that's when the current policy page is failing to give helpful guidance. So we could continue to "re-invent" guidance that was invented some ten years ago, and then continue to find "no consensus" to implement it, or, alternatively, and that's what I propose, admit that the helpful existing guidance was not successfully transferred at the time of the merger, and deal with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. "Are we really debating whether it's better to have a single but lengthy policy page or many but shorter policy pages?" – I'm not. Not even interested in that discussion, as I said above: "If the guideline works better to address the issues mentioned in this section, either please keep the guideline, or see to it that it gets a better summary in WP:AT." So I'll cling to the guideline only inasmuch as WP:SMALLDETAILS continues to be ineffective for part of the issues that should be covered by it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes... the question of whether it is better to cover precision along side the other criteria, in a single but lengthy policy page... or better to have many but shorter guideline pages for each criteria is exactly what we need to discuss. Once that is settled, then we can work on what to say at whatever page discusses it. Personally, I would prefer to have it all covered in one place.

Actually... I think it is time that we review the basic structure of this policy. I have long thought that a policy with five listed criteria should be structured around those criteria... ie there would be a fairly substantial section for each of five criteria. A section on Recognizability, a section on Naturalness, a section on Precision, etc. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested in exploring that. Would you be willing to do an outline or somesuch somewhere? - jc37 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

See fate of the last restructure proposal involving this section at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52#Combined proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Jc37, if the issue here was about "lengthy policy page or many but shorter policy pages", I would agree with Blueboar that it's better to have everything on one page.

But I agree with Francis Schonken that it's not about that. It is about "lengthy policy page PLUS one (redundant and possibly conflicting) shorter guideline page", and I definitely oppose that, and Francis explains why everyone should. Unless I'm misunderstanding, Francis is saying he disagrees with what this page says, agrees with what the separate page says, can't get consensus to include that in this page, so wants to get it by restoring the separate guideline. Now, I don't understand or remember what exactly it is that Francis thinks is so important on that page that should be in policy (I don't know what the "the Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem/Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem principle" is, much less what current policy doesn't say about that but should), but I definitely think the way to get it (or anything else about the criteria), is through consensus building on this talk page, and eventually incorporating it on this policy page. Simply reverting a longstanding redirect back to the page that has what someone likes strikes me as an end-run around the consensus-building process. --В²C ☎ 20:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple things. First, there are a LOT of naming conventions/article title pages. This is merely one. That said, this is a rather important one, and I could see why we would want it merged to a central page. Now if there is more to the policy than what is wanted on that main page, then, per summary style, we spit the excess to a separate page. And on the converse, if the entirety of the page should be merged to the central page, that can be done too. That's all merely a matter of format.

But I get the impression when I read the above that there is a question of content of the policy.

So what's the over-riding concern? - jc37 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. "over-riding concern": "If the guideline works better to address the issues mentioned in this section, either please keep the guideline, or see to it that it gets a better summary in WP:AT." as I said in my first contribution in this section, and have already re-quoted when you asked a similar question above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Jc37 (1) this is a policy page, the naming conventions are guidelines. (2) "we would want it merged" wrong tense it was merged 5 years ago and there is no consensus to restore it. (3) many of the naming conventions were originally written as work around when "common name" meant common name through all web pages including reliable sources. As a work around WikiProjects introduced rules that 95% of the time produced results similar to that in reliable sources (eg "Mary I of England", rather than "Bloody Mary"). When "common name in reliable sources" was introduced into this policy page, most of those naming conventions became redundant, but (providing the naming convention in question does not contradict this policy), getting projects to drop their comfort blankets is more trouble than it is worth. -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Which seem secondary concerns (the third is even a straw man regarding this issue) when the over-riding concern is to have the guidance that most effectively helps editors with their practical questions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't care whether it's been a redirect for 5 years. As you note, most editors act BOLDly and likely never even look here. Looking at pages and seeing them as unchangeable aedifices is not what we do here. Entrenchment is counter productive.

That aside, from reading above, apparently none of us here care if this page is returned to being a redirect except, that it's been stated that apparently the merging was incompletely done in the past. If so, using this page as "raw material", since, at some point the text on this policy page had consensus, and since, from my understanding the issue with the merging was not the text here, but simply wanting it all on one page (as also noted above) - So what text needs to be added to AT from here to complete the merge, or at least to reflect common practice and/or prior consensus? - jc37 09:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The text here is the problem: even what it exactly tries to convey is unclear (e.g. the whole second paragraph with the JESUS example is fuzzy, what really is the intention of this prose?) – as such the prose of the section is not policy-level material.

As for the processable part of the guidance prose:

• The guideline frames this as an ambiguity issue to be resolved by the "appropriate disambiguation technique", and then lists three with some indications and examples when to use which.
• The policy page steps over the ambiguity concept and goes straight to "strongly advising" two disambiguation techniques, and (after an aside) envelopes the third in so much fuzz it is unclear what is actually meant. Which is a kind of signal to apply the first two almost exclusively, and for the third something like "don't go there". Which prevents the most appropriate disambiguation technique to be applied in certain cases, and people coming here (again) asking whether they can't do it differently, while employing whatever is the most appropriate disambiguation technique should already have covered that.

The fact that, in this dicussion, it has been repeatedly asked what the difference is between both guidances illustrates that at least one is not clear at face value, like a policy should be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Francis, this is out of place in this section. If you have suggestions on how to improve the description of precision on this policy page, please start a separate section where you explain the problem that you see and what you propose to fix it. Then let's see if that has consensus support. Perhaps you've tried and were unable to develop consensus support for your view? Then undoing the redirect to resurrect the old separate guideline so you can express your apparently contra-consensus view of precision is not the way to go - that is not a good argument for supporting the revert of that redirect. If proposals to reword the policy continue to fail, what you can do is copy/paste the content of that old guideline as a basis for a new essay. I suggest the following title for your new essay: WP:Precision, precisely. --В²C ☎ 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't tell your fellow-wikipedians what they can and cannot answer to an honest question.

This RfC is someone's answer to my first comment in the #Using a . to distinguish an article section. That comment of mine contains my rationale for unfolding the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) guideline. So, no, this shouldn't have started in a new section while it breaks up the topic being discussed (and obfuscates I gave a clear rationale). I do such rearrangements of sections into subsections for topics that should stay together upon future archiving (and coherence of current discussion) regularly, and it has thus far always been appreciated.

So I see no reason to do differently here.

On the content of the matter: at the Gangsta. WP:RM someone said "add parenthical disambiguator" was out of order to sort out a WP:SMALLDETAILS issue, which is not what the policy says (see second paragraph of that policy section). Even the editor who brought it to this talk page didn't realise that. The guideline has a better way of explaining it as one of the alternatives, and when to use that particular one, because we didn't have such problems before its folding.

When a few years ago there was a go to fold the guideline into the policy page there never was agreement to fold a tendentious rewrite of the guideline into the policy page. I'm not impressed this wasn't remarked before, because it doesn't occur all that often, but I don't think we should have the same discussion on this talk page every time it happens.

I don't know whether that "third option" is the best way to address the Gangsta. SMALLDETAILS issue (not familiar with the topic area), but people shouldn't be saying it is "against the rules" in the RM discussion. It isn't, but it is difficult to find in the unorganized way the policy section is written currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

What it is exactly that is important to capture from the guideline

Maybe there is consensus for what you're trying to say. I have no idea, because I can't understand what your point is. Can you clearly explain what you think the guideline says, exactly, that is important to capture, and is currently not captured in policy? --В²C ☎ 16:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:Gangsta. moving Gangsta. to Gangsta (manga) is pictured as an "illegitimate" solution while the policy allows it (example in policy: JESUS (album), imaginary example), but nobody appears to be able to find where the policy allows it. The guideline also allows it (Passio (Pärt), IRL example), but it is clearer from the guideline that this is not an arcane solution, it's solving a disambiguation problem with the same do's and don'ts that apply to the more usual disambiguation issues. Then someone comes here, proposing a policy rewrite; then I think: we solved this years ago,... etc. So rewrite the policy (using less words!) in a way that makes this clear. (as said, I don't know whether this third solution is the way to go for Gangsta., my only concern is that people don't picture it as an illegitimate solution, ending up, once every few months, on this page) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh. There is no consensus for that view, not in that specific example, nor in general. For very good reasons, I might add. --В²C ☎ 18:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

? Then you're saying there's no consensus on the policy (WP:AT) that allows it (WP:SMALLDETAILS, second paragraph)? Then, if there's no consensus that that paragraph is policy how come it is in the policy? Only because some people don't understand it and ask others to explain them what it means over and over again? Well, that's not how it should work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And the guideline had and still has consensus, it was never "demoted", the only agreement there was at the time of merging was that it should be summarized in the policy, and if it didn't happen then, it's about time don't you think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of this appears as a WP:IDONTLIKE the policy, the part that happens to be in WP:SMALLDETAILS, second paragraph, so lets keep it as obscure and hidden away as possible, in which case a clear guideline on the same would be preferable, of course. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

What? The second paragraph in WP:SMALLDETAILS is explicitly referring to articles that are "far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than the other", like JESUS and a hypothetical album named JESUS. What does that have to do with Gangsta.? Is there a use of "Gangsta" that is "far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than [the Japanese manga and anime series]"? Apparently not, at least not according to consensus, since Gangsta is a dab page. That's what policy says, and that's what has consensus support. What exactly do you see in that second paragraph that applies to Gangsta., and why? --В²C ☎ 00:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"far more likely to be searched for" might apply (don't know whether it does, I'm not that familiar with the topic area). Anyhow, not an arcane solution, not something that would make people come running here every time it is proposed.

The problem with the policy is that it is overly rigid, i.e. too rigid for a policy page. When there are multiple meanings that combined are "far more likely to be searched for" (like on a disambig page), there's no reason why the principle wouldn't be applicable, subject to consensus as explained in the latter half of the paragraph. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If there was a use for "Gangsta" that was "far more likely to be searched for", then it would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by definition. If we had consensus for that, then the article for that use would be at Gangsta. But that's not the case. Therefore we must assume that none of the uses meet the "far more likely to be searched for" criteria (at the very least, the burden is on anyone who disagrees to prove otherwise).

I don't know what you are referring to when you say, "not an arcane solution". What is not an arcane solution? That sentence is missing a subject and I, for one, cannot glean from the context to what you are referring.

As to the argument that in a situation where multiple meanings are "far more likely to be searched for" that the principle should apply, that makes no sense. That's always the case when there are multiple meanings. It would mean even Oliver! (and countless titles like it), because of all the other uses listed at Oliver and Oliver (surname), could not be a title. The de facto naming convention, manifested in how articles like Oliver! are actually titled, demonstrates that such an interpretation is contrary to consensus. --В²C ☎ 16:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are looking for the ultimate policy statement that "allows" a title (any title)... it is this: ...editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. This statement should probably be moved up to the top of the page, as it is what lies behind the rest of the Policy... Article titles are chosen by consensus (a consensus that should be based on discussing issues like Recognizability, Precision, Naturalness, etc.). As long as there is a consensus for it... any title is allowed. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Which doesn't help on the practical & helpful guidance part for the issue being discussed here: the "considerations" to be taken into account still need to be on the page, practical and helpful, for SMALLDETAILS issues that arise every once and awhile (and if they don't arise often enough to burden a long page with, then they would be better on a separate guidance page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, lets approach it another way... would you explain what exactly you think is "missing" from the SMALLDETAILS sub-section of the policy? Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Another way? That's what I asked, just above: Can you clearly explain what you think the guideline says, exactly, that is important to capture, and is currently not captured in policy? Good luck trying to understand the answer. --В²C ☎ 00:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You understood it perfectly well, as can be seen from your diligent answer, so don't imply your fellow-editors are less able to capture what has been said than you are. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop taking pot shots at each other. It's not conductive to resolving the issue. Francis, obviously there is something that was said in the old guideline that you think is missing from the current policy section. I don't (and won't) speak for other editors... all I can say is that I (personally) don't understand what that something is. I am asking you to be more specific so I can better understand what is concerning you and why. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

B2C is correct, your question is answered above after where B2C asked "Can you clearly explain what you think the guideline says, exactly, that is important to capture, and is currently not captured in policy?" I've placed a subsection title above the comment with that question for easy reference: #What it is exactly that is important to capture from the guideline. Hope you can find the answer now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am still not sure I understand what the issue is... so correct me where if I have it wrong... Is your concern that SMALLDETAILS does not address Gangsta (manga)? If so, then my reaction is: of course SMALLDETAILS doesn't address it... Gangsta (manga) has nothing to do with using a SMALLDETAIL to disambiguate. It is an example of a different form of disambiguation entirely - ie using Parenthetical disambiguation. - and is discussed ("allowed") in its own separate sub-section. Are you saying that SMALLDETAILS should discuss it? Why? Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think he's kind of saying SMALLDETAILS should be clear that the period in Gangsta. is too small a detail to suffice as disambiguation, and so a move to some other form of disambiguation (perhaps parenthetic) is justified. But he's also saying that since SMALLDETAILS is not saying that, that we should resurrect the old guideline page which he believes does say that. I think. But even if I understand that correctly, why he thinks this is important is certainly not clear to me. When I drilled down on what he meant, he ended up essentially reversing primary topic. Instead if there is one topic that is "more likely to be searched than any other", he wants to apply, "if there are multiple topics more likely to be searched than any other..." Frankly, I still don't get it. And I suspect his apparent inability to articulate clearly about this suggests he doesn't either. --В²C ☎ 16:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Never said we should resurrect the guideline. It's about the guidance not the page on which it is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) SMALLDETAILS should discuss Gangsta/Gangsta., and that to address the ambiguity that results from it a viable path is using a disambiguation technique, i.e. parenthical disambiguation Gangsta. (manga), or parenthical disambiguation of a modified/simplified form, e.g. Gangsta (manga) (whatever most conforms to WP:CRITERIA), and the policy (or applicable guideline) should explain this in such a (comprehensible) way that people don't come running to this policy talk page every time something in this vein needs addressing.

Accidently I solved exactly the same issue not so long ago, and indeed because I had the simpler folded guideline in mind, and not the policy text, this went of course as swiftly as can be: Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem has a SMALLDETAILS difference with Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem (the second being the Gangsta.-like content page, the first being a redirect to a Gangsta-like disambiguation page): then a first possibility would have been to add the WP:NCM-recommended disambiguator (in this case: "(Pärt)") to the title of the page, thus: Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem (Pärt), but as it happens the topic is also known as simply "Passio" (which also is an ambiguous term), so I decided to do this – as a solution to the SMALLDETAILS problem. This is what the policy (or if it is too detailed for a policy page: the guideline, even an essay would do) should give guidance on, instead of the complicated cruft that is currently in that section of the policy, so that people don't come running here every time something like this occurs. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

OK... So... can you be more specific as to what should be added to the policy to resolve the issue? I'm not necessarily expecting a formal proposal of language... but at least give us an initial outline of the changes/additions you think would help to clarify the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Good question:

1. Current policy (sort of artificially) limits to "articles", while the SMALLDETAILS issue arises for "expressions": PINK and P!NK have the SMALLDETAILS characteristic, while both are redirects (to different pages). "Resolving" the SMALLDETAILS issue may include "renaming", turning one or both of the expressions into redirects (to articles or to disambiguation pages, depending on what best resolves the ambiguity), e.g. for PINK/P!NK the inherent SMALLDETAILS issue has been addressed by redirecting the first to a disambiguation page and the second to Pink (singer). So the first thing is to make it about "expressions" that are meaningful links in Wikipedia and not exclusively about "articles".
2. Secondly, the "ambiguity" analogy can reduce the current RULECRUFT in the policy: the policy considers a few cases, very detailed, then adds at least one imaginary example to explain... and then when people come to the policy the policy is written so rigid that there's little practical help to be found. None of this is necessary: explain that SMALLDETAILS issues are about ambiguities: in Wikipedia ambiguities are resolved by the techniques explained in WP:D. No need to rehash that guideline in its entirity in the SMALLDETAILS section. Basicly refer to the guidance that will usually be more familiar to editors.
3. Then, highlight three disambiguation techniques used in this context:
   1. WP:HATNOTES – to be used nearly always (on article pages) touched by a SMALLDETAILS issue (the page where Cañon redirects to is the only exception I know)
   2. Create disambiguation pages, like the one Streets of London and Streets Of London redirect to.
   3. Rename, for which the PINK/P!NK example can be used or the Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem/Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem example.
4. When it is not obvious which of these techniques are most appropriate, defer to consensus (without excluding any of the usual disambiguation techniques), instead of trying to regulate it with rulecruft.

Always keep in mind that the WP:AT policy is about article titles (not about explaining disambiguation techniques, for which there is a separate guideline), so technically, in fact, the third option described above (the renaming) is the only one that really belongs in the WP:AT policy, what is said about the other disambiguation techniques should be kept short. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps... I am not sure if I agree with everything you suggest, but I do agree with a lot of it. And your goal of reducing RULECRUFT and INSTRUCTION CREEP is something I can get fully behind. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Resuscitating a guideline that has been a redirect for six years (which is what this RfC is about) is not a way to reduce RULECRUFT and INSTRUCTION CREEP. -- PBS (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

True... but fixing the section of WP:AT that it was redirected to might be. We can agree that resuscitation was not the best way to fix the problem... but we still need to address the underlying concern that prompted it. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's begin with replacing the convoluted second paragraph, depending on a hypothetical example...

---

This form of disambiguation may not be sufficient if one article is far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than the other. For instance, an album entitled JESUS would probably have its article located at JESUS (album), with JESUS continuing to be a redirect to Jesus. If the album or other possible uses were deemed by editors to be reasonably likely search results for "JESUS", consensus among editors would determine whether or not JESUS would be the location for the album article, a redirect to Jesus, a disambiguation page, or a redirect to the existing disambiguation page Jesus (disambiguation).

---

... by something more practical & tangible:

---

When this can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, renaming to a less ambiguous page name should be considered:

• moving P!nk to Pink (singer) for the P!nk/Pink ambiguity.
• renaming Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem to Passio (Pärt) for the ambiguity of the first expression with Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem.

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the section currently ends with:

---

... Special care should be taken for names translated from other languages and even more so for transliterated titles; there is often no standardized format for the English name of the subject, so minor details are often not enough to disambiguate in such cases.

---

I can't think of a single example for that: does it still have any use? Would support removing that from the policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's why DIFFCAPS is the way it is

To Francis Schonken and to all of you:

WP:DIFFCAPS has several different parts that each reflect different move discussions that ended in consensuses. Obviously consensus can change, but until it does, I would assert that this policy should not see a significant change.

1. Discussions such as those at MAVEN have proved specifically that capitalization counts for distinguishing titles. (This is the only part of WP:DIFFCAPS I did not write or codify, if I recall correctly, although I did pick MAVEN as an example for policy.)
2. Talk:The_Wörld_Is_Yours showed that diacritics can distinguish titles, too. There is no clear-cut discussion that I remember leading to punctuation being a valid distinguisher, but neither Oklahoma! nor Airplane! have ever had a move seriously suggested.
3. Topics listed at the dab page Friendly Fire, however, were determined not worth distinguishing from the primary all-lower-case topic friendly fire. Please, if you read nothing else, please read this one. That second paragraph you dislike--that paragraph exists to describe the situation found at the Friendly Fire dab page. Any time you have a strong local-consensus win against policy when the only reason to oppose that consensus was only because it went against policy (and not because of some actual legitimate reason), the policy should be updated. And so it was.
4. Finally, the transliteration section came after a couple of discussions, primarily Talk:Auto-da-Fé_(novel). (See also Auto-da-fé.

I hope this better explains why DIFFCAPS is the way it is. This does not mean that it cannot or should not be changed. But since you wanted to know what was going on, I thought I'd explain. Red Slash 03:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, it explains why the SMALLDETAILS policy section got thoroughly messed up. Jumping at one example at a time, rigidly explaining only that example, so that the applicability for future instances is near to zero, leading to incoherence, and thoroughly impractical guidance...

Example: the part about translation/transliteration (supposedly covering the Auto-da-Fé (novel) example) was written so narrowly that it couldn't be used for the quite similar Passio (Pärt) renaming, while in that case no "translation" nor "transliteration" was involved (expressions remained untranslated and untransliterated in their original form). And then the vagueness: "Special care should be taken ..." – what does that mean? Renaming isn't even mentioned as an option of "taking special care", while, with retrospect when the example is now explicited, that was what was intended.

Anyway, adding a forking SMALLDETAILS ruling in the Trademarks section (see below #Trademarks) is out of the question imho, it further messes up the coherence of the policy-level guidance (depends on which section you're looking at to get a different guidance, yeah, sure, way to go!)

Policy should give a thought framework of how to approach issues when they turn up (which will be a bit different every time they do, so going into the nitty-gritty of individual examples is really no policy-level business). Examples illustrate, making clear what detailed explanations couldn't make half as clear. The overarching principles are clear, and should be explained simply and clearly (hatnotes, dab pages, occasionally renaming), with a few examples to illustrate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with titles that differ only by a very small detail like a period?

Let's say all articles were not at meaningful titles, but at computer generated ones. So the title of the article for Paris was, say, RSD1573 and the article for Paris, Texas the city was RSD1574 and the article for the film Paris, Texas was RSD1575. Now, Paris and Paris, France would redirect to RSD1573, Paris, Texas would redirect to RSD1574 and Paris, Texas (film) would redirect to RSD1575. I submit everything would work fine. That is, users would find the same articles that they find with today's layout, Google would sort the results the same way it does today, etc. The only thing that would differ would be that the title displayed at the article would not be meaningful, but there would be a meaningful name in bold at the start of the article so, practically, that wouldn't be an issue either.

So if everything can work fine if titles are totally meaningless, why, exactly, is it a problem if titles differ by only a small detail, like capitalization or punctuation? Please explain. --В²C ☎ 01:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

But everything does not work fine if titles are meaningless. Titles are meaningful. They provide information, though differently than the article itself. Thus it is better to have a meaningful title at the top of the article, as opposed to an arbitrary pseudo-random title. I know you are aware of this, but the point is that this seems to be the basis of your question, and it's a faulty basis. Omnedon (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that there is no value in meaningful titles. I'm saying people can get to articles just as effectively with meaningless titles as with meaningful titles (because of redirects). The point is: the value of the meaning of the title is only at the article itself, not in getting there. Since titles that reflect the name of the topic, even if the name is the name of another use, are meaningful, what's wrong with having a title on an article that reflects the name of the topic accurately but differs from another title by only a very small detail? In fact, if it were not for the technical issue created by the fact that we use the title in the url which must be unique, what would be wrong with using the exact same title on multiple articles that share an ambiguous name? For example, if not for the technical issue, why not have Mercury be the title of all of the articles about topics with that name (planet, element, etc.)? --В²C ☎ 01:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless you get to an article by clicking SPECIAL:RANDOM, you're getting there from some context. Take the article about the planet Mercury for example. Maybe you searched for Mercury and came from the dab page. Well, you know what you clicked. Or maybe you were on another article, reading about planets, that referenced Mercury through a link which you clicked on. Do you really need to be told it's the planet Mercury and not some other use of Mercury when you get there? And if you did get there with SPECIAL:RANDOM, there is a photo of the planet which dominates the title anyway, and of course even without the photo there is the intro sentence. I contend the only significant value of disambiguation is it allows a way to have a unique title when disambiguation is technically necessary in a way that does not diminish the meaningfulness value of the title. If it were not for the technical reasons for disambiguation, having just the name of the topic (like Mercury) would be perfectly and sufficiently meaningful. Don't you agree? Therefore a title like Gangsta., since it accurately reflects the name of the topic, and is unique so no technical issues, should be fine; not problematic or deficient in any way. Right? --В²C ☎ 02:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, recognition (as in WP:RECOGNIZABLE) is one of the key priniciples for how articles are named in Wikipedia. Cutting that out leads to a meaningless discussion in this context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting tied in knots by a Japanese fad

Noting that:

• much, of not all, of the above discussion on whether a terminal period is a sufficient disambiguator involves things from Japan, and
• that traditional Japanese does not use the period, and
• that Japanese_punctuation#Words_containing_full_stops tells us that inclusion of the of English period has turned into a fad,
• which appears to have Japanese meaning different to the English period, and
• that use of words spelled with a terminal period makes the running text look silly,

Wikipedia should probably stop respecting the Japanese period in translations to English, both in running text and in titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As I have said, I am not really a fan of the terminal dot for disambiguation... but... I do have to question whether it is really accurate to describe a practice that has been going on for almost 30 years (since the 1980s) with the dismissive term: "fad". "Fad" implies a rather brief period of popularity that quickly fades. This practice does not look like it is really fading. Blueboar (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Fad is not my word. If you look to examples of words containing the Japanese full stop, they do not include serious topics. Also I am seeing that these terminal Japanese full stops are not well translated as English full stops, but are closer to the English exclamation mark, and as having effect on pronunciation but not on sentence structure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yep this isn't Mangapedia! or An1MEpedia.... these things are just decorative romaji among katana and hiragana we shouldn't be swinging the entire encyclopedia around to accommodate typographic fun and games. Similarly in western pop with Talk:4_Minutes_(Madonna_song)#Requested_move_27_July_2015 the big difference between "4" and "Four" .. which we don't do. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Appears it is all much simpler:
  • [1]
  • [2]

WP:MOSTM says no to inclusion of a period in a page name, so neither Gangsta. nor Gangsta. (manga) are compliant. Only a variant without period would be acceptable.

This does however not yet solve the problem of having more appropriate guidance in general. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: actually, what it says is "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced ... unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character when discussing the subject." (emphasis mine). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And...? I think I made a comparison where a comparison is due (frequency/usage/... etc.). They should all follow the same guidance whether you emphasise a part of it or not. Where's the significant majority of truly independent reliable sources in the Gangsta. case? Doesn't seem particularily more significant than in the Skate. or Melody. case. So stop fussing and apply the guidance as written. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I'm not "fussing", I'm engaging in sensible debate, which is how issues on Wikipedia are supposed to be resolved. If you would do the same, instead of merely degrading the people who disagree with you, perhaps this could actually be a productive conversation. P.S.: conversely, where are the sources not using the period in the Gangsta. case? Since there are none (or very, very few), I think that constitutes a "significant majority". G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned there, although there is a abundance of reliable sources, none of them a what we'd call quality sources for an encyclopedia. Mostly they are published facts, not secondary sources, and those that do contain commentary are clearly written for fan audiences, certainly not academic writing. There is no cross-comparison of genre or themes. Accordingly, all the sources replicate the product's styling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, WikiProject Anime and manga disagrees with you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There is more to source analysis than "reliable". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It kind of seems like you're looking for any reason to ignore the use of the period in all reliable sources. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a good reason. Given the disruption of a random, apparently for-decoration, period to readability of English text, it is entirely sensible to point out that all of the sources are closely connected sources that are simply copying the primary source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The period is no more disruptive than a period used in an abbreviation, which no one would bat an eyelid at if they saw it in the middle of a sentence. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Really, I don't see a difference with the degree of significance for the other ones that lost their point per the MoS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's just WP:OTHERSTUFF, and doesn't really bear on this. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, we might have to reexamine the results of those consensuses. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOSTM isn't "otherstuff", it's the applicable guideline. Yeah sure, it could be rewritten. Or re-interpreted. Or both. Since there's no consensus either way at the current RM, I'm a proponent of a "less fuss" option, instead of going out on a limb for less obvious cases. Please also consider this: recent culture has less occurrence in more stabilized reliable sources (e.g. google books): in that case, default to "avoid using special characters that are not pronounced", since there is no "significant" number "of reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to begin with (a significant majority, can per plain basic rules of statistics, only be defined if there's a significant group to begin with). There are less than a handful of reliable sources that are independent of the subject mentioned in the Gangsta. article. No significant majority can be derived from so little sources, even if they would all do the same (which they don't). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about MOS:TM, I was referring to the other pages you mentioned. Also, "no consensus" translates to "don't move" in RM discussions: even more so in this one since the supporters are split fairly evenly between Gangsta (manga) and Gangsta. (manga). Nor does your arbitrarily defined "majority" matter, since almost all the sources use the period. So no matter if you like it or not, WP:COMMONNAME dictates that the period be used. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very late to this discussion, but for my two cents worth I am generally against WP:MINORDETAILS, WP:DIFFCAPS etc. and I would favour a move towards a policy or guideline that says we should use disambiguation pages in such cases. Some may regard it as a dumbing down of standards, but the modern trend is towards case insensitivity, not away from it. For practical purposes Jesus, Jesus, and JESUS should be regarded as interchangeable. Similarly V. and V are the same thing. Google searches are always case insensitive (there isn't even a way to make them case sensitive in the advanced options). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Trademarks

I removed this paragraph added to the policy page:

Using specialized spelling, punctuation or capitalization can also be used for natural disambiguation, even if the trademarked spelling is not the most natural or commonly used name.

This example, contained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, contradicts this, so the proposed addition, besides other flaws, is not suitable policy content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Other flaws:
  • The proposed change contains IPod and EBay, while Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks has, explicitly, iPod and eBay
  • Comparatively too much examples which deviate from MOS:TMRULES, it doesn't give the general thrust of that guideline, giving too much attention to exceptions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll strongly disagree with that. Very, very strong consensuses determined deadmau5 to be the right title, and it obviously is, and the only reason we had any controversy about it was that MOS:TM contradicted WP:COMMONNAME. But finally (finally!), after tons and tons of discussion, we made the common-sense correct decision with a profound majority and moved it back to where it should be: the common name.

This was a seminal moment in article titles on Wikipedia. If you doubt it was a seminal moment, please, read:

1. the first RM, where people basically just bowed to MOS:TM and it was moved to deadmaus;

1. a discussion I initiated at MOS:TM's talkpage, which went on forever; and finally,

1. the next RM, full of people lambasting the prior move and pushing for a reversion;

1. the overwhelming crush of consensus to deliberately and directly overrule MOS:TM based solely on WP:COMMONNAME.

That is our standing consensus, and that is why I made the edit to explicitly show that here. Our policies exist so that we can show newbies how we do things at Wikipedia, reflecting consensuses developed in the encyclopedia at large as well as here in the WT namespace. Completely as a side issue; no, there is no article at iPod. The article is at IPod. Check it yourself and see. We can display it as iPod, and should! But there is no article at iPod, which is an exception to WP:COMMONNAME made for unavoidable technical reasons. Red Slash 16:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Seminal or whatever "very, very strong" & discussions taking place elsewhere (three of the four you mention on the same single article), etc, consensus needs to be found before anything of the sort can be added to policy. I disagree, with wording etc of your proposals, & your needing several reverts before coming to the talk page to explain yourself is not likely to convince me otherwise.

Note that to all extents and purposes "Deadmau5" is a contentious example, and can, for that reason, not be used on a policy page... whatever your victory boasting over it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Victory boasting"? Why do you think being mean will help you? Did you notice I actually supported "deadmaus" in the first request? I changed my mind because of the quality of the arguments presented. Red Slash 03:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "victory boasting" is a fair way to describe the situation. Nonetheless, I've reverted Red Slash's edit again. I'm not sure if the consensus supports the idea that the deadmau5 move was sufficiently game-changing to be a prime reason to alter policy about article titles. It might be, but I would like to see more people weigh in to the discussion here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd support removing the Standard English and trademarks section from the policy page entirely (make the shortcut redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules), together with replacing the last paragraph of WP:SMALLDETAILS (only one sentence: "Plural forms may in certain instances also be used to naturally distinguish articles; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)#Primary topic for details.") by:

---

Further guidance:

• Plurals (e.g. spectacle vs. spectacles): see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)#Primary topic.
• Special formatting of trademarks (e.g. TIME, Skate., PlayStation): see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

To use or not to use final periods (full stops) as disambiguation – move request that may affect WP:AT

Move discussion at Gangsta. on moving it to Gangsta (manga) per precedent at Janet. > Janet (album) and Shakira. > Shakira (album).

Since a quick read of WP:AT does not appear to support the move (which IMO seems common sensical: I can't see how a period makes an intelligible dab), and since there are comments that WP:AT might should be modified to reflect the consensus arrived at the move discussion, I thought editors of WP:AT should either chime in or close the move request. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Section title

I'd propose to change the current section title:

---

====Using minor details to naturally disambiguate articles====

---

to:

---

===When a spelling variant indicates a distinct topic===

---

Rationale: minor details are not in all circumstances a technique to "naturally disambiguate", and this is partly the reason why the current policy guidance is so confusing, leading to such contradictory statements as "WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't apply while we're talking about a small difference" and the like (see above). The section should provide guidance when a "smalldetails" issue arrises, and not limit the possible solutions to such issues via the section title to "only" natural disambiguation (which is often not the way this is handled, e.g. P!nk being renamed to a page with a parenthical disambiguator). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Charles Darwin as an example of COMMONNAME

Re this edit, it may be noted that Charles Darwin's full name was Charles Robert Darwin, distinguishing him from his little-known [deceased] uncle Charles Darwin, but he's generally known as Charles Darwin and his biographers use the intials CD. Don't know if this helps as an example or not. . . dave souza, talk 12:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed this as an example, but my edit was reverted. I don't think the title Charles Darwin is really an example of WP:COMMONNAME... it's more an example of disambiguation (specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether by the specific example of Charles Darwin or not it would be appreciated if there could be a stronger emphasis on <First name> <Last name> examples as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). The second paragraph of this project page begins: "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher." Another way of handling things might be to, in some way, incorporate mention of the <First name> <Last name> convention.

As editors who are regular at WP:RM may realise, these are issues that are raised with regularity such as in current discussion William Oliver Brown → Oliver Brown (activist). I was expecting to find a different discussion but this may have been closed early or promptly at the end of the week cycle.

Please can we have more coherent policy support for editor practice. Policy can also cover general practice in addition to its presentations of exceptional circumstances. GregKaye 09:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment in a previous discussion I said "Possible options for this could include: *Nelson Mandela, Charles Darwin, Margaret Thatcher, David Beckham, Thomas Edison or Justin Bieber." An extremely wide range of other examples could also be used but I think we would benefit from presenting something that is more representative of the naming conventions policy. GregKaye 09:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: please keep to the closer's comment at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52#Common name people - removing (the) pulp?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Again... My concern is that the examples in this section clearly focus on COMMONNAME... and this is best done by picking fairly obvious examples. We should avoid examples that also involve other issues (such as the need for disambiguation). Comparing William Henry Harrison with Benjamin Harrison might be a good example - because in William's case, the sources overwhelmingly include the "Henry" when discussing him... while in Benjamin's case sources rarely include his middle name (I note that our article on him does not even mention his middle name... did he have one?). Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Francis Schonken What in that close do you think is an issue? I personally did not think that it helped to have a close by an editor that I have rarely otherwise seen here or at WP:RM. Please as well keep in mind your own contributions to that discussion in which you suggested the use of the <First name> <Last name> examples: Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela and the <First name> <partial Last name> examples: Marie Curie and Angelina Jolie.

Blueboar while I have no objection to the use of the example Benjamin Harrison (except that, from what you say, this does not seem to be so much an example of WP:COMMONNAME but of WP:ONLYNAME) I really do not understand any objection of Charles Darwin as being a CLEAR example of WP:COMMONNAME. Charles Darwin is commonly known as Charles Darwin. What, in your interpretation, is his commonly recognizable name?? Please, please, what? This is like wading through treacle and I'm getting to the point where it seems people who are rarely involved in the practicalities of page moves are obstructing just because they can. Please. I am genuinely trying to make progress and I don't see that the reasonings against, or lack of them, make any sense.

Please, please make a review of previous threads touching on commonname issues for peoplw. Please, please pay some attention to the practical situations that arise at WP:RM. Please. All of the problems that I personally recall as arising relate to editors having added a middle name against the conventions of WP:COMMONNAME. Problems of people omitting a middle name against commonname rarely, if ever, crop up. We already have the example of John F. Kennedy to give an indication of a middle initial addition. In relation to real world editing can you give any indication as to why a <First name> <Middle name> <Last name> example might be needed or be in any way beneficial?

AGAIN The second paragraph Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) begins: "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher." Can we please, please, please have a WP:COMMONNAME content that supports this, PLEASE. Please can you either explain or drop your obtuse and, as far as I can see, desperately ill-informed objections. Please can you either explain any objections or simply stop, for no apparently earthly reason, objecting.

I am trying to make an edit that provides a crystal clear <First name> <Last name> example of commonname.

There is practical work to be done via locations such as WP:RM GregKaye 17:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, phrases like "desperately ill-informed objections" (to give just one example) are not helpful. Nor is your continual use of "please, please". Omnedon (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon Until the objections are explained I stick with my request "Please can you either explain or drop your obtuse and, as far as I can see, desperately ill-informed objections". None of this makes any sense to me. Yes I am frustrated with what genuinely seems to be nonsense but will warmly welcome explanation. If editors cannot do this it would be better if they were not involved at all. GregKaye 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Greg... Why do you think it so important to provide an example that fits the normal <First name> <Last name> convention? How will providing one help explain the concept of COMMONNAME? When explaining something like this, I think it would be more helpful to provide examples that are exceptions to the norm... (such as William Henry Harrison, or William Jennings Bryan). Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• [3] – not really related to the above, just saw this didn't work right: the page move might however ease some minds on the "uncle" business. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar Re: "so important". I think that it would be of benefit to the content to have a further <First name> <Last name> example. As said "AGAIN The second paragraph Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) begins: "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher."" and I think that it would be of benefit to "have a WP:COMMONNAME content that supports this"

Re: "How will providing one help explain the concept of COMMONNAME?" It doesn't. I personally think that WP:COMMONNAME is one of the most basic and simple concepts within Wikipedia and, at an extreme, perhaps no examples are needed to help to explain the concept. However, examples are given and they tend to be examples of exceptional situations all used to explain "commonname". How many people do you personally know who aren't primarily recognizable and definable according to a <First name> <Last name> format? What proportion of the people you know are known by names incorporating a middle initial or middle name? I don't know any. How many people do you know that are known nicknames? On a social basis I don't even know the real names of my friends "Moose" and "Scully" but they still constitute only a small proportion of the people I know. We live in a real world and people are primarily known according to the <First name> <Last name> designation format. That's just how it works at least in locations other than Wikipedia.

Let me polish off my WP:CRYSTALBALL with the complete speculation that, if Charles Darwin were not so well known and if he were not known for such things as published works, it might be perfectly possible for his Wikipedia article to be named Charles Robert Darwin. This might simply because he was mentioned on minimal occasion by that name in a context such as his Obituary. In the world of Wikipedia this type of situation happens with regularity.

It is possible for a never or rarely used in life middle name to be applied to a name in an utterly unnatural form of disambiguation with any concept of commonname being disguarded.

We have a list of people related "commonname" examples that typically support the concept of the inclusion of additions to the <First name> <Last name> format and we have WP:NATURAL which also encourages additions to the <First name> <Last name> format but, departing from real world realities, we present very few actual <First name> <Last name> examples. The one clear example of this that we have is François Mitterrand who doesn't come from a predominantly English speaking country. GregKaye 17:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

OK... so, since we have an example of "<Firstname> <Lastname>" with François Mitterrand why do we need another? I don't necessarily oppose having another example... I just don't think we need one. My concern is simply that Darwin is not a good example because that name has a potential disambiguation issue. I think we should avoid using ambiguous names as an example of COMMMONNAME ... That just confuses people (and besides disambiguation issues are discussed elsewhere in the policy and in their own guideline). If the consensus is that we do need another "<Firstname> <Lastname>" example of COMMONNAME, then I would ask that we choose a name that is not ambiguous. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The two sides of POVNAME

At present, at my reading, the content at WP:POVNAME/WP:NPOVNAME focuses on the differentiation between justified and unjustified, arguably, negatively presented titles with examples being presented as Boston Massacre and the Teapot Dome scandal.

This policy exists on the view that, "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy" and I think that it is fair to consider that POVs may exist in two directions.

Arguably, one of the most controversial titles in Wikipedia has been Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which, as far as WP:OFFICIALNAME is concerned, was changed to "Islamic State".

However I think that it is notable that the primary focus of this group has been the promotion of a very specific ideology associated with Islam that sources have described as a variant of Salafi Jihadism. Also that their practice is to fight against groups incorporating Shias, Sufis and what I described as non-line toeing Sunnis. In this context I think that the context of the group's name change is quite key. According to group spokesperson Abu Mohammad al-Adnani [4] the consecutively made claims were: "Thus, he [Baghdadi] is the imam and khalīfah for the Muslims everywhere. Accordingly, the “Iraq and Shām” in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration. We clarify to the Muslims that with this declaration of khilāfah, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to the khalīfah Ibrāhīm and support him (may Allah preserve him). The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah’s authority and arrival of its troops to their areas."

I think that this pretty much summaries the issues of controversy and also think that it is reasonable to associate the usage of the name with the, I would argue, POV claim of being the state for all Islam and that the claim regarding being a state comes in the context of a claim that "The legality of all ... (internationally recognised, existing) states, ... becomes null."

Comments in opposition to article name change by other editors in recent RMs have included:

• "An Islamic state means a caliphate. It's true that Da'esh represents itself as a caliphate, but it's not the primary meaning of the term. The trivial difference in capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish these senses, either; because "The Islamic State" represents itself as an Islamic state, a reader with no prior understanding of the topic could get very confused ...";
• "Groups' self-naming is disputed by Muslim World and their 'stateness' is disputed" and
• "wikipedia should not become a mouthpiece for ISIL ideological propaganda about themselves".
• ", "Islamic state" refers to a general type of state that is Islamic. The present natural disambiguation ensures that the title is both unambiguous, neutral, common, and suitable for an encyclopaedic register."
• ""Islamic State" is worse than POV/advocacy, it is incorrect. There is no such Islamic State. Move to DAESH instead."

Perhaps there are other examples but I personally think that it is fairly argued that the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"/"Islamic State" titling can be debated within the same context as other titles in POVNAME.

I am unsure what changes, if any, should be made to the actual project page text but wanted to flag up the issue, of their being two sides of neutrality, up for discussion. GregKaye 07:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The point behind POVNAME is that sometimes we have to allow the use of a potentially POV name as a title, in order to achieve a more basic criteria (the criteria of Recognizability). When a potentially POV name is used siginficantly more often than any other (ie it has become the WP:COMMONNAME) the need for Recognizability outweighs the need for Neutrality. Whether this applies to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"/"Islamic State" debate (or not) I will leave to others to determine. I don't know whether either name is used significantly more often than the other. That said... have you considered that another option that may be even more recognizable than either of those names... I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the most recognizable variant of the name is the abbreviation "ISIL" (pronounced "eye-sil") - as opposed to the name spelled out in full. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The point behind POVNAME is to supply a context for consideration of issues when, "Conflicts ... arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy." Remarkably editors at Talk:ISIL have objected to the application of potential NPOV issues and of the mention of WP:POVNAME as they claim, on the basis of wording, that POVNAME does not apply. As such it is presented that alleged NPOV issues cannot be considered in regard to the establishment of consensus. My contention remains that POVNAME presents policy from just one perspective. GregKaye 13:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You are reading more into POVNAME than was intended (and as someone who helped write it, I do know the original intent). I would actually agree with those who say that POVNAME does not actually apply to the choice presented in that RM, because both titles are POV. We are not presented with a choice between a "COMMON but POV" name and "non-COMMON but non-POV" name ... we are presented with two POV names (both of which are fairly common, although one may be slightly more common than the other) and have to figure out which best fits our criteria. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender and national sports teams

I'd like to raise a question about current naming of national sports teams. Teams are usually named according to the following formula: County national sport team eg Canada national baseball team, Canada national rugby union team, Canada national bandy team, Canada national cricket team, and so on. It's also possible to insert "men's" or "women's" into the titles as appropriate eg Canada national men's basketball team, Canada national women's soccer team. However the default name predominantly either contains the men's team, or directs to the men's team. To take a selected sample, based upon templates at Category:National teams navigational boxes:

Team type	Ungendered name	"Men's national team"	"Women's national team"	Some other name
Canada
Men's teams	8	14		3
Women's teams	1		19	4
Mixed gender	2			1
England
Men's teams	8	5
Women's teams	1		10
Mixed gender	3
Brazil
Men's teams	14	3		1
Women's teams			12	1
Mixed gender
Japan
Men's teams	15	6		1
Women's teams			13	1
Mixed gender	1
Kenya
Men's teams	6
Women's teams			4
Mixed gender	1
Totals
Men's teams	51	28		5
Women's teams	2		58	6
Mixed gender	7			1

There's a clear tendency here - in most sports, the standard practice is to use the ungendered name to refer to the male team, and the gender specific name to refer to the female team eg England national football team/England national women's football team. Voleyball and Water Polo seem to consistently buck this trend as always specifying men's/women's. Other sports show some variation.

I understand that in many of these instances, the reasoning behind the male team being at the ungendered name is that that is the most recognized WP:COMMONAME. Indeed, the policy does clearly state that non-neutral common names are fine as article titles. To some extent, what I'm not looking for here is a discussion of whether a mass name change would fit current policies. Rather, Wikipedia has a problem with its meta:Gender gap. It is meant to be accessible and editable by all, and it is fairly well established that these small differences replicate and reemphasize Wikipedia's gender problems. I'm therefore tentatively suggesting that we should encourage a move of all national sports teams to "men's national sport team" or "women's national sports team" unless the other gender does not have an article title (or the team takes another name eg Davis Cup and Fed Cup teams). However, I might just be a pinko lefty feminist whose views are out of touch with the majority of Wikipedians - the encyclopedia works by consensus and this isn't a trouble for others: well at least I've pointed it out. I think that this merits consideration and would urge you to consider that this is a simple change that could contribute in a small way to overcoming one of Wikipedia's major biases. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Heck, I'm far on the opposite end of the pinko commie spectrum, but I think this train of thought has merit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Rather seems something for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams). Please see if you can find consensus for this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams). If so, and guidance to that effect is introduced in the guideline, it's always possible to report back here to see whether anything would be said about it in the general naming conventions policy (normally not, however, there's no habit of summarizing dozens of topic-specific naming conventions in the main policy page – introducing something directly in the policy, without harmonization with the topic-specific naming convention seems even less desirable). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs... I agree that the real world has a gender bias in how it names its sports teams... but Wikipedia is not the place to correct that bias. We follow what the real world does (as reflected in source usage) in our titles... we don't lead the way in the hopes that the real world will follow. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree quite strongly with Fyunck in regard to this train of thought having merit. There is pretty much equal recognisability between titles such as Foobar team and Men's foobar team. In such an instance in which common name is not so much of an issue and, within situations in which (in Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation) the fourth category of "Descriptive name" can apply, I think that the most relevant aspects of p and g that should be applied are WP:NPOV and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. GregKaye 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In as much as I would generally support a general movement to gendering both male and female national teams, I would note that NPOV in this instance would lean toward a COMMONNAME argument rather than SYSTEMICBIAS. Resolute 17:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Death of John Doe", "Shooting of John Doe", "Murder of John Doe" vs "John Doe"

We had a discussion on the talk page of Death of Sandra Bland about moving the article to just Sandra Bland Talk:Death_of_Sandra_Bland#Requested_move_1_August_2015. Basically a person may not be notable, but there Murder, Killing, Shooting, Death is. I think we should standardize this and just use the victims name for the article. It's what will be searched for by readers, it lessens our pontificating ("this was a shooting, see refs", "this was a murder, see refs"), and it's just simpler. What I said there was

• These "Death of XYZ", "Killing of XYS", "Shooting of XYZ" are silly names caused by our notability policy.

-"XYZ isn't notable, delete it"

-"I changed it to 'Shooting of XYZ', it's notable, see these references"

-"Darn, foiled again"

An RfC needs to be done on a higher level policy page, and all these articles should be named after the person who died.

So here it is. Not sure if this is the right place for this, I'm not very active anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

With correct use of redirects, searching for "John Doe" will take the reader to the article whether its title is "John Doe", "Death of John Doe", "Killing of John Doe", "Shooting of John Doe", "Murder of John Doe", or "Political leanings, philosophy, and sexual orientation of John Doe". Therefore "it's what will be searched for by readers" needn't be part of this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#How to apply "1E" guidelines to murderers. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• These titles are about explicitly limiting the implied scope of coverage. Wikipedia should not be the original and only publisher of a biography. An article John Doe is interpreted by a reasonable prospective editor as a biography on John Doe, and its existence invites contributions that round out a biography. If there are no secondary sources outside the Murder of John Doe, then addition of material beyond that is improper. If the title is kept to Murder of John Doe, the prospective editor does not feel invited to add information on John's family, childhood, and employment history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Add me as an interested party in this discussion. In reply to a previous comment, I can't agree that what readers search for is irrelevant to the discussion; see "Naturalness" at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.

Regarding consistency of guideline application across articles, is it it the consensus that the articles Rodney King and Chandra Levy are properly named per existing guidelines, and if so, what is it that makes these titles correct (rather than, say, Beating of Rodney King and Disappearance/Death of Chandra Levy) as opposed to others that include the Death of... prefix? I realize that titles are considered case-by-case and some may be in a gray area, but these two in particular I don't understand.

I also disagree that "An article John Doe is interpreted by a reasonable prospective editor as a biography on John Doe" unless you can provide a policy reference for that statement. Finally, please WP:AGF and avoid judgy words like "reasonable" which imply that those allied with your PoV are in that camp, and those that perhaps see things differently from you are not reasonable. Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)