Wikipedia talk:Article titles

WP:CONCISE

Full disclosure: I came to this page again from a discussion at Talk:May 1968 events in France. This edit by me is not related to any of the arguments from that discussion, however. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2019‎ (UTC)

Should "Correctness" be added to the 5 criteria?

When I look at the 5 criteria for an article title, I see nothing about correctness or accuracy. Should that be added? I am particularly looking at cases where a person or entity does an official name change; two examples I have in mind are The Chicks (which some editors are saying should stay with their old name Dixie Chicks); and Cat Stevens, when Yusuf Islam is more accurate, more respectful to Yusuf himself, and is used by the more careful sources. Surely an encyclopedia should strive to be accurate, even in cases where many or even most sources are not. Adpete (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Correctness is discussed in the next section: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." I would support elevating it to be a sixth criterion. However, I don't think "correctness" really applies to either of the examples you mentioned, as those both use correct but old names. Currency is a trickier criterion to integrate with the others, particularly recognizability. I don't know what we would say that isn't already covered in WP:NAMECHANGES. Though I have certainly found that there is more resistance to some types of name changes than others.--Trystan (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes but in both those cases, the old title is less correct. If correctness was one of the official criteria, it would give a better balance (IMHO). Adpete (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Long answer: if reliable sources start referring to the subject by the new name - not just in the context of "so and so just announced a name change" but actually using the new name to refer to the subject as a noteworthy entity under the new name, then that can become the appropriate name. The criterion for the article title is not "what do they call themselves right now", it's "how would a casual reader refer to the subject". A name change is for the lede of the article, not the title, just like with the native name of a foreign institution that is known in reliable sources by its English translation. VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

That is my point: I am proposing that the criteria change. I know what the current rules are; and I think they are flawed. A correctness criterion would help avoid names which are... well, incorrect. Adpete (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Then no. The encyclopedia is for readers, not the correctness police. VanIsaac_WS^cont 16:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy" -- WP:5PILLARS. Adpete (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• No. “Correctness” is subjective, subjective to perspective. Wikipedia should follow the sources, reliable sources, quality sources. Wikipedians should debate which sources are best, and follow them. Wikipedians should not debate what is “correct”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course I meant correctness as given by the WP:RS. Adpete (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

“Correctness” is not a word mentioned at WP:RS. Introducing this term here would hurt clarity, not help. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Accuracy" would be a better choice of word then. Adpete (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, you're talking about the legal, official name as being the correct one, I gather. But I mean who cares what some lawyers or politicians decided to name something? The John Hancock Tower in Boston is legally named "200 Clarendon Street" (the John Hancock Insurance Company made the owners change it when they moved, or something). But nobody calls it that. They call it the John Hancock Tower (or the Hancock Tower, or just the Hancock). If you make a date with a girl to meet at 200 Clarendon, she'll be waiting for you in Instanbul. So why use a name that nobody uses or recognizes just because some lawyers from the John Hancock Insurance Company and the owners of the building made some decision based on branding rights and legal pettifoggery?

That, anyway, appears to be the majority view here, and by a good margin. Your point is not unreasonable. We could indeed decide to name things this way. Maybe that would even be better (providing the proper redirects are in place). It would reduce arguments, for one thing, and there's nothing inherently wrong or bad in doing it that way. But it would be some very heavy lifting indeed to make that happen, so I'd let it go. You haven't changed my mind, for one. "It's correct" doesn't do much for me. The type of argument that appeals to me is "this change would be better for the reader, because [cogent and persuasive points]". Until and unless you can demonstrate that it'd be a net improvement for the readers to have "Cat Stevens" renamed to "Yusuf" etc., you're dead in the water. Herostratus (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not advocating official names over popular names; I am advocating accurate names over inaccurate ones (per WP:5PILLARS). Renaming the "Cat Stevens" article would help the reader to understand that Cat Stevens is no longer Yusuf Islam's name, and is not an accurate way to refer to him. (Similarly Dixie Chicks, Bruce Jenner, 2019-nCoV epidemic, etc). I am also not saying this should be a hard and fast rule, but that accuracy should at least be in the criteria. At the moment it is not. Adpete (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"Cat Stevens" is still Yusuf Islam's name in the hearts and minds and countless fans and consumers of his work. There is nothing 'inaccurate' about it. There is no reason prescribe greater importance to the legal act of changing a name than to collective knowledge of his activities under the name "Cat Stevens". RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think correctness is already in the policy, as part of precision. And where it is not, it is often a violation of WP:COMMONNAME and should not be part of policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I wish that was the case, but as stated at the moment, precision only refers to unambiguity. Perhaps accuracy could be incorporated into that guideline (e.g. something like "Precision – The title accurately and unambiguously identifies..."). As I mentioned above, accuracy is part of one of the pillars of WP, so I am not advocating a core change to WP; I am just (in my opinion) addressing an imbalance in the Article Titles section. Adpete (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree, correctness should be a criterion. I find it absurd that an encyclopedia uses a popualrity contest as its main criterion for naming the articles. Apparently page clicks are more important than presenting the correct information. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• If correctness (or 'accuracy) is interpreted as it inevitably will be, it shall mean we must refer to Rome as Roma, &c. Correctness is a nonsense when it comes to naming, because what is correct depends upon one's viewpoint. What matters is the language actually used by people to refer to things, as is evident in the usage of the collective body of reliable sources, and as is enshrined in the common name criteria, rather than what some elite grouping of essentialists determines is 'correct' or 'accurate'. RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not elite grouping, it is people and organizations themselves that set the correct names for them. It is disrespectful and amateurish for an encyclopedia to completely ignore that. And Rome refers to iteslf as Rome in English (Roma is Italian) : https://www.rome.net/ https://www.rome.info/ https://www.romeinformation.it/en/ etc. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Doesn't make any sense: Cat Stevens and Dixie Chicks are correct names. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent WP:OFFICIALNAMES. DrKay (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No. It is a subjective idea, and to the extent anything objective could be distilled from it, it's already covered by WP:PRECISE. If something is technically a misnomer, that will be addressed in the article body.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOSBIO regarding WP:UKNATIONALS

There's a discussion at WT:MOSBIO regarding turning an essay, WP:UKNATIONALS, into a MOS guideline. Input appreciated at: WT:MOSBIO#WP:UKNATIONALS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

CONSISTENT and flag-related articles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Bonnie Blue Flag#Requested move 17 July 2020

It involves WP:CONSISTENT (and, consequently, MOS:ARTCON).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Gráinne Ní Mháille RM and move review involves COMMONNAME

Move review: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2020_July#Gráinne_Ní_Mháille

Links:

Gráinne Ní Mháille (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

—-В²C ☎ 19:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Google Ngram syntax instructions

Hi there! I've seen this a few times but haven't really picked up on it, but it looks like when we're considering using hyphens in article names, Google Ngram requires special notation to search when using the hyphen otherwise the hyphen acts as an operator. For example, searching well-being on Google Ngram searches for "well" that doesn't reference to '"being", whereas well - being searches for "well-being". Since this is a really important thing to consider, is there anyway to include this in this article or on a WP:NGRAMS page etc? ItsPugle (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Move request discussion: Title for the Suicide of Kurt Cobain article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain#Requested move 27 July 2020. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)