Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Questionable phrasing: Ambiguous or inaccurate

See also Archive 34: Ambiguous or inaccurate

I think this sentence in the Common names section should be improved or removed: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."
Problems:

• "ambiguous names" - are already handled by disambiguation rules, so why avoid them?
• "inaccurate names" - who or what decides that a certain name is "inaccurate"? We will need some objective definition for it, otherwise this phrasing paves the way for "improving on our sources".
• "are often avoided" - how often? Better not to use weasel words in our policy pages.

Thoughts? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

When and how did this sentence slip into the policy? I don't remember any discussion of it (And I would have opposed if it had been discussed... the "inaccurate" part seems to conflict with WP:Official name, where we clearly say to favor a commonly used "inaccurate" name over the more "accurate" official name). Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... upon examination, it seems that it has been in the policy for quite a while... we just didn't see the conflict before. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. So, if ambiguous names are handled by our disambiguation rules and inaccurate names are not avoided if they are common, then we can as well delete this sentence to resolve the policy conflict per WP:POLCON. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been discussed before (PMA moved it up from its position at the end) and I'll look for the previous discussion in a moment. But it evolves around the "as determined by reliable sources" not what Wikiepdia editors think are inaccurate or titles that are ambiguous because there is a dab page of similar names. -- PBS (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

So, it is basically a confusing phrasing. Reliable sources are needed to determine that other reliable sources are not reliable. And how is that not going to turn into a circular argument? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

See Archive 34: Ambiguous or inaccurate, for the earlier discussion and where the phrase comes from. The example originally given was "tsunami ... over the ... less accurate tidal wave". (This popular usage changed since the big Indian Ocean tsunami, but go back before that and there were plenty of scientific articles which explained the difference, while many non scientific sources continued to use the term tidal wave). -- PBS (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Good to see that I am not alone in seeing problems with this phrasing. So basically it is trying to say this: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable academic/scientific sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable popular/media sources." Or maybe more simply: "More accurate names, as determined by reliable academic sources, can be preferred over the more common names found in reliable popular sources (e.g. media)". Is that correct? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a specific case, but it happens in other fields as well, for example the names of legislation, legal cases and other things. But care has to be taken in drafting it because otherwise we end up with pushers who say it should be the "Catholic Church/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints/Conservative and Unionist Party" etc, because that is the official name they use. Perhaps we need to limit it to "reliable third party source" and I don't think your wording makes it any clearer than it is now that we are specifically talking about "article titles described as inaccurate in authoritative third party sources" BTW there is a problem with "in" is that a source can also be the "creator of the work" (WP:RS), so I think this needs further discussion. -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous names, in the context of thus sentence, are not handled by WP:DAB pages. The point here is actually to avoid the need for dab pages by using more precise names (when possible) rather than confusingly ambiguous names. This is about their real-world use, not about the number of articles with similar names in existence on the English Wikipedia.

For example, what's a heart attack? Most people mean a myocardial infarction, but some people use this word to mean benign heart palpitations, panic attacks, or other conditions. Some of these conditions are equally serious: cardiac arrest due to electrical shock is a "heart attack", but it's not a myocardial infarction. The term is ambiguous, meaning that if someone says "I had a heart attack during the scary movie", you can't be certain in the real world which one of the various meanings the speaker intends.

And, in this instance, the confusing, ambiguous, imprecise nature of this term is amply documented in reliable sources, and we have taken their advice to reject the "ambiguous" real-world name in favor of the precise, equally real-world names for these multiple conditions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So it is basically a poorly worded reference to the "precision" criterium: "Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." and already explained very well in WP:PRECISE. Explaining the same thing in too many different places is what leads to confusion and policy conflicts. Why don't we replace this phrase with something more clear like: "If the most common name is too imprecise or ambiguous, then we may opt for a less common (but still common) alternative name." MakeSense64 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it is not necessarily about precision it is about using the information in sources about the article title not about surveying the literature ourselves. It is rare that such information is available, but when it is it normally the determining factor in an RM discussion for the name that is selected as the article title. And it does not include the use of expert terms ("someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic"). Probably the best thing to do is to move the sentence back out of the paragraph reword it if necessary (like replacing "by reliable sources" with "in reliable sources" ), give WhatamIdoing's example, and keep out eyes open for another one that comes up at WP:RM. -- PBS (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. So it's now pretty clear that the current phrasing is rather confusing and open to various interpretations, which are not necessarily in line with the original intention. Afaiks the confusion comes from "by reliable sources" appearing twice in the same sentence, while it is not about the same "reliable sources". It is about "more authoritative reliable sources" contending that a certain name found more commonly in "all reliable sources" is inaccurate or ambiguous for a given topic. In that case we may decide to follow the information in these "more authoritative reliable sources" and opt for the more accurate name.

Looking into @WhatamIdoing's example I am not quite sure this is a good example. Right now Heart attack redirects to Myocardial infarction. But if what he says is right then that shouldn't be. We should have an article at Heart attack explaining that there are various conditions that may be referred to as "heart attack" on the basis of these "more authoritative reliable sources" who say so. The imprecise nature of this term as amply documented in reliable sources, that can make for a good and useful article. Letting Heart attack redirect to Myocardial infarction only reinforces the wrong view that they are the same.

And this makes me wonder whether we need this phrase after all. If we have ample reliable sources stating that a certain common term is inaccurate and why, then we have ample sources to create an article for that inaccurate term. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for your idea, of course, but I believe that Heart attack redirects where it does because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Most readers who want to know about heart attacks are looking for information about cardiac problems caused by blocked blood vessels, that is, myocardial infarction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, how nicely we obey our "rules", don't we? Anyway, I am happy you brought up this heart attack example and have now taken it here Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Acute_usefulness. We will see if there are more editors who have sympathy for the idea. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Misuse

The phrase in question is now also misused in RM discussions as you can see in this edit: [1]
Editor(s) try to reject anglicized or conventional English names as "inaccurate" and quote this particular phrase, even though that has clearly never been the intention of this phrase. Then you get more votes per "accurate name", and it means articles get moved against our policy. So I think we should implement the earlier suggestion and add a clear example for what this sentence actually means (e.g. heart attack). To stop misinterpretation we can also add a phrase stating that: "Common names should not be considered "inaccurate" just because they do not follow native spelling." Does anybody object? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Debates over which name is more "accurate" can often be settled by pointing to WP:Official name... the native spelling (ie with diacritics) can be considered the person's "Official name"... which is not necessarily the name that we use as a title. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added the heart attack example as an explanatory footnote.

It's not clear to me that a similar footnote would be as useful for the diacritics problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see your edit has been reverted already. And it makes me wonder: if we have so much trouble to find and agree on a good example for this phrase, then what is "often" doing in that sentence? If this happens often we should find examples easily.

What is the actual need for this phrase, when we already have a "precise" criteria that makes it clear that a title needs to be "precise enough" to identify the topic. It is redundant and only creates confusion and misuse of this sentence. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should revert the revert as the editor who made it does not seem to be taking part in this discussion, and those that do seem to be broadly in agreement. MS64 remember above we talked about where this sentence came from and that it is to do with what is said in reliable sources about accuracy and not the precision that is meant by this precision as choice for article titles made by Wikipedia editors. -- PBS (talk)

Yes, I remember what we discussed. But we cannot deny that "accurate" and "precise" are pretty much synonymous, so the phrasing easily creates confusion. Imo, the contention that a given term is "not precise enough" to serve as an article title, can either come on the basis of common sense, or because we have reliable sources contending that the term in question is inaccurate or ambiguous. Is there any need to spell out the latter case in a confusing sentence, while we struggle to find good examples for this exception? Anyway, I see that Blueboar has simplified the sentence and it looks now more clearly worded. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

We most certainly can deny that accuracy and precision are the same! They are really very different. "The Sun is about 100 million miles away from the Earth" is accurate and imprecise. "The Sun is 36.42249249 inches away from the Earth" is inaccurate but very precise.

I think that the example should be restored. If Noetica wants to contest it, then Noetica can show up on the talk page and explain how zero objections here, in a discussion that lasted a couple of weeks, indicates widespread disagreement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate naming as specified in reliable sources rather than usage by editorial survey of reliable sources

BB I reverted you change with the comment "revert last edit (see the talk page section "Questionable phrasing: Ambiguous or inaccurate") The point of the sentence is when reliable sources say specifically say that a name is inaccurate. (Eg heart attack) BB your change guts the sentence." because the change from:

• 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.

to

• Ambiguous names for the article subject are sometimes avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

Alters the meaning from a reliable source specifically saying a name is inaccurate to just the usual editorial survey of usage. If we have only the editorial survey meaning then we can remove the sentence completely -- something I am not necessarily against -- but a halfway house is just unnecessary and confusing. -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. I am trying it with a slightly different formulation that retains the original meaning, while being less confusing imo. Any objections to this formulation? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your change was: "A common name may be avoided as the article title, if we have reliable sources who contend that the name in question is ambiguous or inaccurate for the article subject." I think it would be better if "if we have" were changed to "if there are". BB would that address you comment in the edit history "the fact that one reliable source says 'X' is wrong is not a reason to avoid 'X' " as both "have reliable sources" and "if there are reliable sources" mean more than one. -- PBS (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My problem is with including the word "inaccurate" in this context. If a particular name is the most commonly used by reliable sources then, due to that very predominance of usage, that name simply is not "inaccurate". It may not be the "official" name or "approved" name... but it isn't inaccurate. Usage makes it accurate. Blueboar (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have taken your suggestion of removing the entire sentence (pending further discussion)... Unfortunately doing so removes the bit about avoiding the most commonly used name if that name is ambiguous (which I think is an important exception to WP:COMMONNAME, and should be stated.) Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

. OK. I notice our friend in ictu oculi has once again started a different section for what is an ongoing discussion, something for which he was warned very recently. Anyway, here is where we stand for the moment. Current phrasing:

Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

The new phrasing I had added:

A common name may be avoided as the article title, if we have reliable sources who contend that the name in question is ambiguous or inaccurate for the article subject.

I think the second phrasing is saying just the same, but does it more clearly. Here are my reasons:

• "often avoided" seems not to be the case, since we have struggled to find good examples for this exception ("heart attack" and "starfish" have been brought up so far). So "may be avoided" is more accurate and also more neutrally worded.
• The point of the sentence is that we may make an exception (to the common name) when we have multiple reliable sources contending that the name in question is ambiguous or inaccurate, then we take that into account in our choosing of the optimal article title. Editors saying that a certain name is "inaccurate" is not good enough, they need to bring multiple sources saying so. I think my new phrasing made that more clear than the earlier one.
• BB has formulated objection to the use of the word "inaccurate". It is indeed true that an "inaccurate name" may over time become the "accurate" name if it gets commonly used. But I think what we need is reliable sources not only saying that a name is "ambiguous or inaccurate" but also explaining why. "Heart attack" was a good example of a term that is deemed to be "ambiguous" and reliable sources explain why. The "starfish" is an example of a name that reliable sources consider to be "inaccurate" since they explain it is not really a "fish". Since with the "starfish" we have found an example of an "inaccurate name" I think we should retain "inaccurate" in the phrasing.

Does anybody disagree? Any other good reasons why we should not use my proposed edit? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"often avoided" seems not to be the case, since we have struggled to find good examples for this exception ("heart attack" and "starfish" have been brought up so far).

Starfish and Jellyfish are counterexamples; we use the subjects' most common names despite expert sources deeming them inaccurate.

An even better counterexample is D. B. Cooper, a factually erroneous name for the article's subject.

Diana, Princess of Wales is an example of an article for which we reject the subject's most common name (Princess Diana) on the basis that it's inaccurate.

BB has formulated objection to the use of the word "inaccurate". It is indeed true that an "inaccurate name" may over time become the "accurate" name if it gets commonly used.

Yes, but Blueboar is incorrect in stating that this occurs automatically and without exception.

Both "D. B. Cooper" and "Princess Diana" are examples of factually inaccurate names that predominate in common usage (which doesn't cause them to become accurate). As noted above, we use the former (but not the latter) as the title of the subject's article, presumably because it's the only common name (with the hijacker's actual alias remaining rather obscure).

Any other good reasons why we should not use my proposed edit?

Regarding ambiguous names, it's too specific.

There might not be "reliable sources who contend that the name in question is ambiguous". The current wording ("as determined by reliable sources") also refers to scenarios in which ambiguity is established via reliable sources' use of a term to mean more than one thing.

In other words, if some reliable sources refer to x as "foo" while other reliable sources refer to y as "foo", we can determine via reliable sources that the name "foo" is ambiguous (despite the fact that the sources aren't actively contending that it is). —David Levy 09:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but Blueboar is incorrect in stating that this occurs automatically and without exception.

I think you are right on that point. There are "inaccurate names" that may be becoming more commonly used, but are not widely accepted as "accurate" alternatives yet. So, then we can agree to keep "inaccurate" somewhere in the phrasing, as was already the case in my proposed edit.

As for "Princess Diana". I do not think it is an "inaccurate name" but rather another example of an ambiguous name, because there have probable been other princesses with the name Diana.

In other words, if some reliable sources refer to x as "foo" while other reliable sources refer to y as "foo", we can determine via reliable sources that the name "foo" is ambiguous (despite the fact that the sources aren't actively contending that it is).

This is true, but this is already covered in much greater detail in the WP:PRECISION section. So there is no need to try to cover this in the COMMONNAMES section as well. The sentence under discussion is specifically about exception cases where we may reject a certain common name on the basis of what reliable sources contend. Problems with the same common name being used for different topics is covered in the Precision and disambiguation section. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As for "Princess Diana". I do not think it is an "inaccurate name" but rather another example of an ambiguous name, because there have probable been other princesses with the name Diana.

In the British monarchy, the title of "Princess" precedes a female's name only if she's a princess in her own right (not solely because she married a prince). Diana was not a princess by birth, nor was she created a princess by Queen Elizabeth II. Therefore, "Princess Diana" is factually inaccurate (as a matter of both custom and law).

This is true, but this is already covered in much greater detail in the WP:PRECISION section. So there is no need to try to cover this in the COMMONNAMES section as well.

Perhaps not, but I see little wrong with the current wording (I've suggested substituting "sometimes" for "often") and no advantage to your proposed revision. —David Levy 23:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

While "Princess Diana" may be more commonly used than "Diana, Princess of Wales", I don't think that usage issignificantly more common. Both versions of the name are common.

In other words, I don't think it is a good example of a WP:COMMONNAME situation. And if it isn't a WP:COMMONNAME situation, then it does not relate to what I am concerned about. I have no problem using Precision as a tie breaker between two common variations when there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME (we are allowed to use "Official" names, after all... we simply don't favor them over some other name that are significantly more commonly used).

As for "often" vs "sometimes"... Can anyone think of even five examples where we favored accuracy over a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME? I really suspect that this is a very rare occurrence... and if so, I am concerned that even mention it in the policy would give it undue weight. We certainly should not say it happens "often"... and I question whether we should even say it happens "sometimes". Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, general policy pages should probably not try to describe every rare exception, because doing so would make the page overly long and do more harm than good (because the potential for confusion increases exponentially with the size of a page).

We seem to struggle to find good examples. And even if we manage to find five or ten very good examples, we should also wonder how many of these examples would have been normally solved by simply considering the 5 goals/criteria as stated in the first section. The commonnames section already refers directly to it by stating: "Editors should also ask the questions outlined above."

Furthermore, the world would not fall apart because we keep her article at Princess Diana. What would be the harm in it, since we give the full name and other alternative names in the lede anyway? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

multiple titles

This may have been discussed before, but why does wp software not support multiple titles for articles? This would reduce the discussions and resources that now go into RM. It would also serve more various audiences. Here is how it could work:
We now use several redirects already. If there is more than one acceptable title for an article then they could be added in the very beginning of the article in a hidden template like {{alttitles|title1|title2|title3|...}}. When somebody searches for an article on one of the alternative titles, or accesses the page through a redirect, then render the article with the title of their own choice. Of course, redirects we make for common typos should not be used as alternative titles. So an "alternative title" would get rendered as the title of the article only if it is listed in the "alttitles" template.
An additional benefit would be that for example even Cyrillic or Chinese names can be added in the alttitles list, and when a person comes to wp looking up that name, then he would see that name as the title of the article. Right now our titling policy states that we put the interests of a general audience before those of specialists. With this suggestion we could serve both the general audience AND the specialists. Everybody happy. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

In some ways, we already support multiple titles... see Wikipedia:Redirect. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and this idea would take it one step further: display the name used in the redirect as the title of the page (provided it was not a redirect made for a common typo). Let's take our article about Munich, why not display "München" as the title of the article whenever somebody visits the page through this redirect: München, or when somebody came to search wp for "München"? What is the need to push just one of the alternative names as the title? It wouldn't take much change in the wp software code to do this. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem a great idea to me. If we constantly use "Munich" in the article in question, why should we display "München" or something else as the title? I think this would be likely to confuse the reader unnecessarily. mgeo talk 21:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

How so? Alternative renderings of the name are normally mentioned or listed in the lede of the article anyway. Readers will understand that only one of those names can be used in the text (although I have seen articles where different sections use different alternative name depending on the context). This is not a print encyclopedia, which means that we have more flexibility in how we render the article before it is sent to the reader. It can be more customized. To customize the title according to the reader's search would take no more than a few lines of code. So, why not do it? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree: this is one of those good ideas that should not be implemented. With some exceptions, there should be one name used primarily throughout the article; the first paragraph should give major alternative names and if necessary alternative names should be explained. Anything else is confusing. Proper implementation would probably not be easy. --Boson (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And it breaks the wiki model, where every title is just a text file. You no longer have the ability to click "edit" on any redirect and write up an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If the redirect is from a misspelling, would you really want that as the title? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It already says "(Redirected from München)", although the fine print could be made bigger. Art LaPella (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, on a second thought, this could be an interesting option in case we have several English equivalent names (like "colour" and "color", "organisation" and "organization" and so on). In this case I guess there wouldn't be any confusion among the readers. But IMHO it shouldn't be used for cases like "Munich" and "München" because these are not strictly equivalent (i.e. "Munich" is standard English, "München" is not). mgeo talk 00:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should 'common name' be used to title articles incorrectly

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the common name be used for an article even when that name is wrong? This follows on from Talk:Boleyn Ground#Requested move which also makes a nice example. In this instance the name "Upton Park" is not the name of the stadium even if it is, undoubtedly, the common name. Dpmuk (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support allowing the correct name. My reasoning here is that the purpose of common name is to cause the reader least surprise. Using the example, yes, when the reader first arrives at the page they are going to be more surprised by the article being titled Boleyn Ground but in the longer term I feel they would be more surprised by an encyclopaedia having an article at an incorrect title. I also think it could harm the reputation of wikipedia to have articles at incorrect titles. Additionally the purpose of encyclopaedia, including Wikipedia, is to spread knowledge and by using an incorrect title I think we could be helping to spread inaccurate knowledge that seems to go against that greater purpose. I also note that cases like this are different from any of the current examples given, this is not the difference between a technical name and a common name (e.g. Guinea pig), a shortened or different version of a name (e.g. Bill Clinton) or a stage name (e.g. Hulk Hogan). I have also seen more and more people saying at requested moves that we should use the correct name but they usually lose out to blind adherence to common name, hence the reason I started this RfC. I think that cases such as these were the common name is wrong should be treated on a case-by-case basis, rather than by blind adherence to common name, and that a statement to that affect should be added to this policy. Dpmuk (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The flaw with the proposal is in the assumption that one name is "correct" while another is not. This is not the case. One name may be the official name and another an unofficial name, but if both names are used in sources, both names are "correct". See: WP:Official name for more on this. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Neither the subject header or the RfC wording is neutral - just thought I'd point that out. I'm not yet commenting on the issue. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Agreed. This RfC should be immediately closed and a new one with neutral wording opened when sufficient time has passed that this one is unlikely to have affected opinions about a new one. Dpmuk, you should be ashamed of yourself for poisoning the well and putting forth a sham process to gain support for your position. ElKevbo (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I see no reason why a football stadium could not have a nickname, and if that nickname overtakes the "official name" as the most commonly used name in reliable sources, then it can be used as the article title. The reader should not be confused about this, as all alternative names should be given in the lede anyway. Of course there have to be redirects from these alternative names. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fine, I've closed it as I can see how the title could be misconstrued. Will write more in a minute. Dpmuk (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

To expand on that, part of the issue here was that I was originally thinking of also including Sexually transmitted disease as an example, where at the RM I believe there was consensus that the title was, from a scientific point of view now wrong (and so incorrect) but I didn't as STD has undoubtedly previously been the correct name so has it's own problems as an example. As such I was thinking of "correct" in that context and I will admit to not seeing the possibility that people could interpret "incorrect" and "wrong" as incorrect from a wikipedia point of view which I were, with hindsight, I assume the complaint is.

In reply to specific people:

ElKevbo - what do you mean by "putting forth a sham process". For a start that doesn't seem like AGF and I'm not sure what you mean.

Blueboar - I'm aware of WP:Official names, which I note is only an essay. I agree it has many valid points which is why I'm not arguing for the this across the board, merely that the possibility of misleading readers should be taken into account and common name not be blindly followed in these cases. I suspect most readers would expect an encyclopedia to use official names and so the use of another name could be misleading. In many cases such as a use of a stage name, shortened name etc the fact that it's not the official name is obvious. In cases such as this it's less clear and I think that should be taken into consideration when naming an article.

MakeSense64 - I think you raise a valid point and as I say above that's why I'm not arguing for this across the board, only that things other than common name should be taken into consideration.

Dpmuk (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe all we need to know is that there can be two or three (nearly) equally "common" names for something, and the "official name" may be one of them. But that doesn't imply we chose the official name in such a case. We chose the alternative that best approaches the five "goals" stated in WP:CRITERIA. The "official name" will always be in the lede, and as far as "article titles" go wp basically choses the most "practical" name. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But I note there's no "correctness" in there. Should we still be using STD even though it would appear that consensus is that, scientifically, it's incorrect. Maybe that's the root of what I'm getting at here - should we have a correctness criteria that should be considered rather than just common name. I will accept that in the Upton Park example it could be argued that Upton Park is correct and if that is consensus fine but at the moment it suggests we should be using Upton Park regardless if it is the common name (ignoring for now the argument being made at the RM that it might not be the common name - something I never saw coming) and that there shouldn't even be the need for a discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to the recent changes on the policy page I also now see quite a lot of overlap with the discussion above. I hadn't realise that was discussing the same sort of area due to the heading being about phrasing rather than about the policy itself. Dpmuk (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMONNAME is sound policy for a general encyclopedia. However, as generally understood and applied within WP, it has failings not entirely attributable to the Common name policy itself. Its first and probably greatest failing is the lack of consistent, replicatable methodology that indeed determines the common name of any topic. The current methodology as seen in many RMs is very ad hoc and loaded with the biases of the editors pushing one common name over another. Its second failing (not of its own making) is trying to equate common names with accurate or correct names. Correctness and especially accuracy demands a solid point of reference or ground truth if you will. When you introduce cultural, political, language and other biases into a discussion about accuracy or correctness (each editor will view something a being accurate only based on their view of what the real ground truth is), what is common to one editor is not to another. Common name does not care about accuracy or correctness, it cares only about what is most prevalent in all reliable sources, sources that have not been culled to selective remove or deal with the inherent cultural, political and language biases we face in the WP community. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Restored 16 May deletion to WP:COMMONNAME status quo 23 March

Titles are often proper nouns, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. Editors should also ask the questions outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

WP:COMMONNAME is part of the basic building blocks of WP:AT, to have this section (i) used as a sandbox, (ii) deleted for 7 days, is not helpful to promoting encyclopaedic accuracy. This deleted section in particular is one of the few clear instructions to keep to encyclopaedic standards, high-MOS, etc rather than let en.wp slide into a tabloid blog where WP:MAJORITYNAME is the rule. Rather than further sandboxing (almost edit-warring?) in the text of WP:COMMONNAME, if there are constructive improvements to the sentence (I see some above but not too convincing), let's list the options, and then gain community-wide consensus before further sandboxing in the article text or deleting. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the sentence is missing two words:

• Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by other otherwise reliable sources.

In ictu oculi (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the return of the text as far as ambiguous names are concerned... but I strongly disagree where "inaccurate" names are concerned. The problem here is that we don't discount the most commonly used name because someone thinks it is "inaccurate"... indeed the entire point of COMMONNAME is to settle disputes over accuracy (whether between editors or between sources) by using whatever name is most commonly used in the sources. Essentially we are saying that the the name that is used most commonly in the sources is accurate... by definition. Furthermore, as it stands now (with the word "inaccurate" included, the paragraph in question is directly contradicted by the paragraph that follows it (on "official names"). Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

[NB the text does not say "because someone thinks it is "inaccurate"" but "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources" There's no question that WP:RS show the popular majority name to be inaccurate.] In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, I have restored "or inaccurate" to status quo (again), please do not remove this again without full agreement. Per WP:Five Pillars "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy" so accuracy is an aim of WP. I do not believe that the entire point of WP:COMMONNAME is to settle disputes over accuracy, but even if that is the case, in many cases accuracy can be established. It is not the case that the the name that is used most commonly in the sources is accurate... by definition since what are reliable sources must also be assessed. Only what is most commonly in reliable-for-purpose sources is the basis. Otherwise we'll be writing biology articles from 100x creationist websites rather than 10x academic papers. This applies to content, naming, and within naming to high-MOS orthography. If you want to qualify accurate with "accurate according to reliable-for-purpose sources" then that's fine. Deleting "accurate", sorry, isn't.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where an article might want to include a name which is known to be inaccurate from a minority of reliable-for-purpose sources, but is used by the majority of otherwise reliable sources, which are accurate in other matters but not on the name? And where removal of "or inaccurate" would benefit the article by allowing the known-to-be-inaccurate name to be used? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If I understand your questions (and I'm not 100% sure of that), the starfish article comes to mind. For decades, marine biologists have sought to promote "sea star" as a common name for members of the class Asteroidea. "Starfish" is considered inaccurate (because these organisms aren't fish), but it nonetheless remains the most common name among non-specialist sources (and reliable sources in general). As a result, several discussions have demonstrated consensus for the article to use that title (despite the inaccuracy).

Likewise, we use the title jellyfish (not "sea jelly"). —David Levy 01:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Or indeed silverfish. Okay that gives me an indication of what one intent behind the line. Though I don't really see how starfish jellyfish and silverfish are "inaccurate", it's simply a popular name. Okay that captures a reasonable aspect of accuracy - so when names are "scientifically inaccurate" there is a good case for waiving that aspect of accuracy. My starting point of reference is actually "orthographically inaccurate": a minority of sources spell "François Mitterrand" a majority of unreliable-for-purpose sources spell "Francois Mitterrand" in this case there's no advantage (ease of finding starfish jellyfish and silverfish), so where is the advantage to the User in going with inaccuracy? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Though I don't really see how starfish jellyfish and silverfish are "inaccurate", it's simply a popular name.

You touched on the answer later in your reply; they're considered scientifically inaccurate. When my elementary school class visited an aquarium (more than twenty years ago), the marine biologist leading the tour advised us that the name "starfish" was incorrect. That seems to be a common view among expert sources. Their concern, I believe, is that the public (particularly schoolchildren) might mistakenly believe that these organisms actually are fish. (Obviously, this doesn't apply to silverfish.)

A noteworthy example of popular usage trumping factual accuracy is D. B. Cooper. The unidentified man in question used the alias "Dan Cooper". An inexperienced reporter mistakenly substituted the name of an uninvolved individual briefly questioned by police. Other sources repeated the error, leading to the widespread misconception that hijacker identified himself as "D. B. Cooper", the inaccurate name by which he remains commonly known to this day. —David Levy 02:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, sure, correct and clear on starfish. But I'm not convinced that D. B. Cooper would be a suitable justification for an inaccurate title for a BLP, in describing an urban legend maybe. How about Talk:Doppelgänger, since that is on WP:RM at the moment citing WP:COMMONNAME as a reason for inaccurate orthography? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

But I'm not convinced that D. B. Cooper would be a suitable justification for an inaccurate title for a BLP

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

How about Talk:Doppelgänger, since that is on WP:RM at the moment citing WP:COMMONNAME as a reason for inaccurate orthography?

In this context, "doppelganger" is not a misspelling of a German word; it's an accepted variant of a loanword descended therefrom. If we were bound by German orthography, the use of a lowercase "d" would be incorrect, as would the use of an "s" to pluralize the word.

However, it's common for loanwords in the English language to retain their diacritics, and this is such an instance; "doppelgänger" (with the umlaut intact) also is an accepted variant, so I don't find Fluffystar's and GoodDay's rationales compelling. —David Levy 04:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just edited image caption to accord with RS that the FBI used "John Doe/aka Dan Cooper" btw. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. —David Levy 04:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with all 3 above comments. How then practically can the wording "accurate" which Blueboard has concerns with best be adjusted (or left alone) to capture (i) the quite sensible starfish example, (ii) the doppelgänger example? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't regard the "doppelgänger" example as relevant, as neither variant is inaccurate in the English language.

I'm not sure that the wording requires adjustment. If anything, perhaps we should change "often" to "sometimes" (to avoid implying that one approach takes precedence). Apart from that, it seems fine. Contrary to Blueboar's broad assertions, we do sometimes reject subjects' most common names on the basis that they're inaccurate. For example, "Princess Diana" is far more common than "Diana, Princess of Wales" is. But the former is inaccurate (based upon codified conventions), so it redirects to the latter. —David Levy 05:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, "doppelgänger" isn't greatly relevant, it just happened to be in RM. One of my own Talk:Édouard Nanny might be more relevant, since there the issue of inaccuracy (due to metal font) is more relevant. I also agree in that I'm not sure the wording requires adjustment. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Iio did you read the section #Questionable phrasing: Ambiguous or inaccurate and the header link (Archive 34: Ambiguous or inaccurate at the start of that section)? If not, then please do so and then explain the comment "reverting PBS edit 'determined in' back to 'determined by' back to status quo - change of meaning" on this revert? -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

French ship <name> (<year>)

I just stumbled upon an array of articles created by one editor with titles of the form "French ship <name> (<year>)", e.g. French ship Sceptre (1780), French ship Redoutable (1791). This looks somewhat questionable to me, but I wanted to ask others for their opinion since I'm by no means an expert on naming conventions and the articles have existed for several years with those names. --195.14.199.196 (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Examples: Boston Massacre

To Philip, examples are not required to be well-known, but they are required to be global. Various guidelines have long had too much Anglo-American bias via hasty selection of examples. Further, an actual case of spinout is to be preferred over a hypothetical case. Accordingly, Boston Massacre should be changed to Babi Yar massacre (or any of dozens of other good examples that can be found). JJB 13:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Babi Yar massacre is a redirect not an article, and most English speaking people would not so easily see that name as biased and presenting one POV.

"Various guidelines have long had too much Anglo-American bias" for whom are the guidelines written? For English speakers Boston Massacre is a well known and as it presents a POV which with a little thought is easy for English speaking people to see, so it is a very good example to use. Many other massacres do not so obviously present biased names to most English speaking people eg the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre is not obviously biased. Others are still very politically controversial eg the Croke Park Massacre (another redirect). So while many other massacres could be used in place of the Boston Massacre, many are either still very politically controversial or are not so obviously seen as biased. Very controversial and not obviously biased do not make good examples for use in this context. -- PBS (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the redirect, that does kill this particular example. But the basic point remains, examples are not required to be well-known, but they are required to be global. The search for the best examples should continue. JJB 22:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Examples are not required to be global. They merely need to illustrate the point well. All of the examples we had in this policy prior to JJB's edits were very good at illustrating what the policy said. Some of the ones JJB has switched to are ok, but in my opinion not as clear... and a few do not really illustrate the point well at all. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"Boston Massacre" is a very good example of a commonly used POV name, precisely because there is debate among scholars as to whether it qualifies as a "Massacre". Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If an name is the WP:COMMONNAME, it is accurate

Re: "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." If a name is the WP:COMMONNAME (ie used significantly more often that any other name), I contend that it is by definition "accurate" - usage makes it so. Thus. we should cut the words "or inaccurate" from the above sentence. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your position already was clear. You've created a new section for the purpose of repeating yourself (without addressing arguments to the contrary). —David Levy 23:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree it will be more useful to continue the discussion in the earlier section, where it is still being discussed and where David Levy has brought useful new examples and input. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem... I will continue up there. My concern was that the discussion about "inaccurate" names got lost in the larger discussion of "ambiguous" names. I see them as distinct issues and wanted to separate the two discussions. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)