Wikipedia talk:Article titles

WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:CRITERIA

"However, when this can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, renaming to a less ambiguous page name should be considered." Under WP:SMALLDETAILS, shouldn't "can" be "cannot" instead, or am I misinterpreting something here?—Bagumba (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this applies to definite and indefinite articles. Isn't WP:THE good enough? --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong. It discourages a/an/the unless proper noun includes one of them. Maybe WP:NATURAL and WP:primary topic are not enough? --George Ho (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of an objection or explanation, I'm semi-boldly changing it to "cannot", which seems to make more sense.—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Err, no: "However, when this can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, renaming to a less ambiguous page name should be considered." is what is intended, don't understand the confusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I'm in the dark about what "this" refers to then. SMALLDETAILS begins by advocating the use of typographical distinctions, e.g. Red meat vs Red Meat, but then the text in question precedes an example to move P!nk to Pink (singer). Which one is considered the "less ambiguous page name" here? I though it was "Pink (singer)", implying that "P!nk was the title that was wandering from WP:CRITERIA. Please explain how I was supposed to interpret this. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"However, when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA such renaming should be considered." might be technically less prone to misunderstanding, but I think current wording is clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Can "this" in the current wording be replaced with something more succinct? I'm still confused what "this" is referring to. Is "this" the use of disambiguation, or is "this' the use of small details?—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

? "this" refers to "renaming to a less ambiguous page name" (see rephrasing above). Really don't understand the confusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"this" is defined in my dictionary as "referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned". In the issue I raised here, you seem to be saying that "this" is not referring to something just mentioned, e.g. small details, but rather something mentioned later i.e. the later phrase "renaming to a less ambiguous page name". That is not intuitive.—Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My dictionary (pocket OED) indicates that "this" can be used to refer to anything "near". As I'm not a native English speaker I'd defer to anyone who is, anyway, as said the intention is that in the sentence "this" refers to "renaming to a less ambiguous page name", and the native English speakers who read it, had not problem with it (seeWikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 53#First paragraph). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

With the recent rewording, probably the statement meant renaming to less ambiguous title without violating or failing WP:CRITERIA. Isn't that right? As for changing to "cannot", that would have meant using a title that would have violated or failed WP:CRITERIA. George Ho (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

SMALLDETAILS/Special characters issue

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Confusion on differing Arabic apostrophe like symbols. Apparently Sha'ban/Sha`ban, Shaaban and Shaban are three different pages: is an apostrophe(-like character) enough to distinguish article titles on topics that are frequently indicated with the name without the apostrophe(-like character)? And without proper hatnote disambiguation for the first no less? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Titles should not be allowed to readily allow of mis-recognition by a reasonable reader familiar with one of the topics, if misrecognition results in the reader being taken to an article unconnected to the article they were expecting. ie. readers should not be subjected to astonishment.

However, if the misrecognized title is not an article, but a disambiguation page, then that is OK. A disambiguation page is short, very easily read even on a little phone, and is supposed to be very easy to use to re-navigate to the page wanted. In the above, Shaaban and Shaban are both disambiguation pages, so there is not a problem here requiring fixing. Someone wanting Sha'ban and misrecognizing Shaaban or Shaban as Sha'ban will be well serviced by either DAB page, both efficiently get the reader back to Sha'ban. Even if it is via the redirect Sha'aban, it is really not so bad at dealing with Persian transliterated into English.

As there is no title disambiguation by funny similar looking characters, there is no problem with respect to this policy. The choice of character for transliteration is a matter for the MOS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• It would be nicer to the readers if all disambiguation pages were suffixed with "(disambiguation)", revealing in hovertext and the big letters at the top of the page that the page is not a proper article. Shaaban and Shaban should be at Shaaban (disambiguation) and Shaban (disambiguation), for clarity. If they were, even this little discussion would be so much easier to read. The historic aversion of having Shaaban redirect Shaaban (disambiguation) seems to be without any good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, err, no, the current disambiguation is a mess, doesn't seem to follow disambiguation guidelines by far or near, and makes navigation cumbersome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? In the current disambiguation generally, or Shaaban? Lots about WP:AT & WP:DAB is a mess, but I think you mean something specific? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

When there are alternative spellings to indicate the same topic the disambiguation should be done better. Tried to fix it (the disambiguation).

Back to the main topic of this thread: when Sha'ban/Sha`ban and Shaban are alternative spellings that generally, all of them, rather refer to the month, than any of the other topics, why should the first two of these links lead to the article on the month, while the third redirects to a disambiguation page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I would think that all of these should have the month as the Primary Topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Think I got it sorted in that sense now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for Naming conventions (sports teams)

I've made a proposal to change the naming conventions for sports teams so that they fall in line more closely with general naming convertions. Participation would be appreciated at this page. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Bold and superscript exceptions

In the section on "Italics and other formatting" we say:

• Other types of formatting (such as bold type and superscript) can technically be achieved in the same way, but should generally not be used in Wikipedia article titles (except for articles on mathematics).

This recent edit added science articles to the exception. I have reverted because I am not sure if the addition has consensus or not (there has been no discussion on it)... so, please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:Common name and fictional characters solely or mostly known by their first names

I started a WP:RfC that is stunted, presumably due to the bickering and WP:Too long; didn't read nature of it. It concerns fictional characters that are primarily known by their first names (or rather solely known by their first names to the general public). In cases such as these, is it best to go with the official full names or with the sole name and a disambiguation to assist it (if the disambiguation is needed), such as in the case of Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? In the case of Faith, she is primarily known simply by that first name, and it was only years later that her last name was revealed and used for subsequent material. It's a similar matter for The Walking Dead characters at the center of of the WP:RfC I started; see Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. And in some cases, their last names are only revealed in the comics or in the television series, meaning that the last names may be known in one medium but not in the another, and that the only way that readers would know the last name is if they Googled it or heard it on television via an interview. So we are commonly left with this and this type of wording that is commonly altered or removed. And since general readers do not know the full names, they won't be typing the full names into the Wikipedia search bar. So if The Walking Dead character articles are to have their full names in the titles of their articles, what does that mean for character articles like Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? WP:CRITERIA states, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."

I ask that you consider commenting in the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion to help resolve this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)