Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Template:DS Courtesy Notice

Proposal: WP:COMMONNAME should use common orthography

WP:COMMONNAME should be modified to have article titles for proper nouns use the most commonly used orthography (capitalization, punctuation, etc.) of that name as well, if there is one if one is prevalent in reliable sources, as is already the case with titles like k.d. lang (not K. D. Lang) and iPod (not Ipod). —Frungi (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC), edited 07:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is dealt with on the WP:TITLE page (the same page as WP:COMMONNAME) at WP:TITLEFORMAT. We follow the manual of style for this. See also MOS:TM and WP:NCCAPS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, no, it isn’t. We’re talking about proper nouns here, and all TITLEFORMAT says on the subject is that they’re an exception to using lower case. And that aside, the capitalization of the acronym laser (not LASER) for instance doesn’t follow from these policies/guidelines—but it would under this proposed change. As for the MOS, I’m pretty sure a policy would trump it if there’s any contradiction. —Frungi (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. WP:TITLEFORMAT points to WP:NCCAPS for further guidance. And whilst "laser" has its origins in an acronym, it is now a standard everyday English word. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I’m getting it from the first heading under TITLEFORMAT: “Use lower case, except for proper names.” NCCAPS doesn’t give any guidance there either, beyond saying to capitalize them. I’m focusing on proper nouns because that’s where this seems most relevant, but your point about “laser” is exactly my point with this proposal: that we should have the title in line with every day use. —Frungi (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not reading WP:NCCAPS properly. It's a lot more in depth than that. It also goes on to state the importance of following a Manual of Style for capitalisation: "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." In fact, if there is to be any change, it shouldn't be here, but at WP:NCCAPS. And probably also at MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I took it here because I thought it would be best to have as a policy, and because it’s so closely related to COMMONNAME which is here. —Frungi (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a naming issue, it's a styling issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It’s both. —Frungi (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The name is "K. D. Lang", the stylisation is "k.d. lang" --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The name is Kathryn Dawn Lang, and the performer's registered trademark is k.d. lang; so normally we would apply MOS:TM, but we've made an exception for this one. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, of your two examples, iPod is explicitly dealt with at MOS:TM anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And I'm not really sure how I feel about "k.d. lang" - maybe that's just a rare exception, as it does go against WP:NCPEOPLE. I note that "e.e. cummings" is at "E. E. Cummings", the only other example I can think of. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe I’ve read on Talk:E. E. Cummings that the man was in fact against having his name rendered in lowercase. And to an earlier post: Spelling and orthography (or stylization, if you prefer) are both part of a name. —Frungi (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, a name is a name, regardless of orthography (unless of course, somehow it does change the meaning, but that would only usually be the case with proper names, which are dealt with anyway). In any case, no need for a change to this guideline, as, for the most part, it is adequately covered by other existing guidelines... --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, this points to a flaw in your proposal, as Cummings is commonly rendered in lowercase. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How is this a flaw? This proposed change would have the article under the most common rendering, whichever that may be, or under standard English rendering if it isn’t clear which is most common. Though if this were Frungipedia, I’d go with the man’s own preference regardless of common use. Anyway, I’ll leave this proposal here and wait to see if anyone else chimes in on it before taking any further action. —Frungi (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, as I stated, WP:COMMONNAME is not the place for this and should not be changed. It's a WP:TITLEFORMAT issue at worse, but more likely a WP:NCCAPS/MOS:CAPS issue. However, your concerns for "iPod" are already adequately dealt with by existing guidelines, and there doesn't seem to be a real issue with "k.d. lang", but that should be addressed at WP:NCPEOPLE if there was. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you’ve already made that opinion clear; and as I said, I’m going to wait for more opinions here before doing anything either way. —Frungi (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support - I take a middle of the road stance here... I firmly believe that we should follow the applicable MOS guidelines in titles... except when there are factors (such as WP:COMMONNAME) that indicate an exception should be made. Such exceptions are made for specific titles, and do not apply to other titles. I think it is important to use words like "exception" and "specific" in any language we use on this issue ... doing so makes it clearer that the norm is to follow the MOS, and that a decision to make an exception to the norm in one title should not influence any other titles (ie you should not argue that E. E. Cummings should be lower cased because we do so at k.d. lang... both title determinations are unique and have unique factors that influence how we format them.) Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Are the guidelines elsewhere not already sufficient? The fact that "k.d. lang" is not at "K. D. Lang" would suggest that current guidelines already allow for appropriate exceptions. By making provision at WP:COMMONNAME, my concern is that we risk setting a controversy higher up the titling process, and we risk negating WP:TITLEFORMAT, WP:NCCAPS, the related manuals of style, and so on. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the amount of argument over the apparent conflict between MOS and COMMONNAME, it is clear to me that the guidelines elsewhere are not sufficient. If they were, we would not be arguing about them. The simple truth is that there are COMMONNAME exceptions to the MOS... Because they are exceptions they do not (and can not) "negate" the MOS.

One thing you have to understand about this policy page... the provisions listed here are intentionally not hierarchical. Titles are determined by examining all the provisions and codicils mentioned... and doing so all at the same time. There is no "higher up" in the titling process.... in fact there is no "process". It is a balancing act. Which provisions and codicils will be given more or less weight changes from one title determination to another. COMMONNAME is usually give a lot of weight... but it does not necessarily "trump" other provisions. We never ignore the MOS... we simply weigh it against other factors. How much weight it is given, compared to any other factors, depends on the specific title we are talking about... and our final decision will be different from one title to the next.

It seems that this is a difficult concept for most MOS oriented editors to grasp... they seem to want firm and fast "rules" to follow - "do X"... "don't do Y". The problem is that WP:AT is intentionally not "rules" based. It's consensus based. It essentially says - To help you reach a consensus: examine X, but at the same time examine Y... Hopefully X and Y will not conflict... but when they do, weigh them against each other in the unique context of the specific article you are working on. This means that in one article, X will be given more weight... while in another, different article, Y will be given more weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

By "higher up in the process", I mean that if an editor is told at WP:COMMONNAME (one of the first sections on the WP:AT page) to use the "most commonly used orthography" as Frungi suggests above, then the editor may not look any further and pay no attention to WP:TITLEFORMAT, WP:NCCAPS, etc, etc, which the proposed clause both leapfrogs and contradicts. Hence it is not an acceptable change.

However, I think what you're suggesting is not the same as Frungi is - in fact your "weak support" !vote seems misplaced, seeing as you clearly don't agree with his proposed change. I think your suggestion may have some merit, but let's nip this suggestion in the bud first, and then discuss separately. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you give an example of how this change might contradict policy where COMMONNAME doesn’t? The only possible examples I can think of are common-sense exceptions like titles rendered in all-caps, and even those I don’t think are common enough to be considered. —Frungi (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of the examples at MOS:TM: Se7en, Alien3, Toys Я Us, eXistenZ, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

With the possible exception of eXistenZ (which isn’t mentioned on that page, but a quick Google search does show both renderings), I think the standard formatting for each of these names is more commonly used by RSes—remember, I’m proposing using the most common rendering—so these examples are invalid. I think you’re reaching here, since I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t be the case for any name containing superscript (Alien³) or a backwards Latin letter. Also, “Se7en” seems a matter of spelling, not orthography. —Frungi (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – there's no reason to use "most common" in choosing styling of names or titles, just as there's not elsewhere. That approach would be chaotic, inconsistent, and hard to judge. That's why we have an MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Just one clarification to what I have been saying... when we are talking about descriptive titles (ie titles that we make up our selves) I actually agree that we should follow MOS... the contentious issue is with NAMES. Names don't follow always conform to accepted spellings, punctuations, capitalizations etc. ... names can be unique (and can have unique stylings - ex: k.d. lang). It is important to note that Wikipedia should never invent a name for someone or some thing... we always defer to sources for names - so our choices for what name to use in our article is limited to what is used by the soruces. In essence, the style has already been determined before we write our articles and determine our titles. Now, sometimes the sources disagree... sometimes one source will indicate that a name should be styled one way, and another source will indictate that it should be styled in a different way, and when that occurs we can choose between the different styles used by our sources (that's where COMMONNAME comes into play). But we never make up our own name for something... and that includes style choices. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to make the point I've made at some length elsewhere, namely that "orthographic style" is not a simple unitary concept, but a spectrum. Some style changes are purely visual, such as spacing between initials or not; in such cases the MOS should be followed strictly. Other orthographic choices, particularly in proper names, such as "MacKinnon" versus "Mackinnon", are cases where the source should be followed, since changing the orthography changes the name. In the middle we have cases where there can be legitimate disagreements as to whether changing the orthography changes the meaning/reference or not (e.g. "k.d. lang" instantly suggests one particular person with this name, whereas there could be more than one "K.D. Lang"; on the other hand "k.d. lang" is the same name as "K.D. Lang"). These intermediate cases are where, as Blueboar rightly notes above, WP:AT requires careful case-by-case weighing of principles. If the existence of a "style spectrum" isn't recognized, editors end up arguing past one another by using the term "style" in different senses. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: "Some style changes are purely visual, such as spacing between initials or not; in such cases the MOS should be followed strictly." It isn't that simple. Ignoring the capitalization issue for the moment... look again at the title k.d. lang... one initial has a space after it, the other does not, and our MOS would have us put a space after both... the way we do at the title E. E. Cummings. But in fact, the reason why it is appropriate to style these two titles differently in Wikipedia has nothing to do with the MOS... they are different in Wikipedia because they were styled differently outside of Wikipedia. Our titles in each case are source based ... not MOS based. We are simply following the sources. COMMONNAME does apply to style issues when it comes to names. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

“COMMONNAME does apply to style issues when it comes to names”—I agree that it should, but this isn’t explicit. My proposal is that we make it explicit. —Frungi (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:INITS regarding k.d. lang: "There is no consensus for always using spaces between initials, neither for never using them". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this makes my example of spacing initials not the best. But if the MOS did recommend a style for this, then, unlike Blueboar perhaps, I would support applying it regardless of the styling in the source, because it's purely a matter of appearance. No-one is going to think that "k.d. lang" is not the same name as "k. d. lang". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as formulated. Capitalization, punctuation, etc. are traditionally handled by publishers' style guides. Such style differences may have meaning, enabling a reader to see the difference between compounds formed from two words in different ways, for instance. The publishers of the sources also have style guides governing such matters, enabling the reader to so differentiate. A reference work that used different styles depending (indirectly) on the style guides of the different publishers used as sources would make nonsense of such sensible differentiation. There may be cases where the MoS should not override the original punctuation, as in book titles like "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" but this applies to all uses of the title, not just as an article title, so is also best handled by the MoS. And even here, it is sensible to use italics, regardless of what the sources do.--Boson (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Support I should outright state my bias in that I am not very happy with the MOS in general. I think, as an encyclopedia, wikipedia should be documenting how names are actually used, not recapitalizing and punctuating them to be internally consistent. Regardless of precedent set by previous encyclopedias, wikipedia should strive to accurately document verifiable information. Redirects exist for a reason, so if people capitalize a tile in a different way in their search, they are redirected to the correct page. The issue I really have is commonname vs given name. If an author or work choses a specific title, and the newspapers/databases/wikipedia all get it wrong, which use should be documented? I tend to favor the authors decision over journalists, because Manuals of Style create entirely contrived but popular orthographies. If I titled my book "xkcdreader Of the darkness" and every manual of style across the world recapitalizes it "Xkcdreader of the Darkness" the "common name" is the latter not the former. Then, by adopting the common name, wikipedia is just adopting other sites/newspapers/encyclopedia's Manual of Style (which in my opinion is pretty damn close to original research.) One example is "Star Trek First Contact" which many sources, including imdb and wikipedia, have added a colon to. Star Trek Generations has a colon on imdb but not wikipedia. Star Trek Nemesis has a colon on imdb and wikipedia, but a hyphen on rotten tomatoes, and google itself calls it "Star Trek Nemesis." My claim is that all the various MOS across the web are making a mess of what should be a simple decision. Another example is the film "Pretty Maids all in a row." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Maids_All_in_a_Row Wikipedia and IMDB have both decided to capitalize "All" and "Row" but I can't exactly figure out why. The movie poster clearly reads "Pretty Maids all in a row" which to me implies "all in a row" are less important words. I firmly believe "Se7en" should be the title of the article, and not "Seven (film)." IMDB, Movieposterdb call it Se7en, and rottentomatoes calles it Seven (Se7en). (This issue might require further investigation, eg what is it registered as at the trademark office, with the mpaa, etc? How does the movie title card read? I know the movie posters use both.) Xkcdreader (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note I am basically reiterating what Blueboar has said. "when we are talking about descriptive titles (ie titles that we make up our selves) I actually agree that we should follow MOS... the contentious issue is with NAMES." The issue is PROPER NOUNS. For articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_brown_fox_jumps_over_the_lazy_dog or any panagram for that matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pangrams) the MOS applies. But when we are talking about a PROPER NOUN, wikipedia should be using the correct name itself. Wikipedia should NEVER be inventing its own name to be internally consistent. If no one else has called it that before, to do so because the MOS says so is unacceptable. Xkcdreader (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this misses the point. No-one is seriously proposing that Wikipedia should invent its own names just to be internally consistent. The issue is a different one: what degree of change in typographic style counts as changing a name? Everyone agrees that some changes don't create new names (e.g. spacing or not of initials). Everyone agrees that other changes do (e.g. "Mackinnon" versus "MacKinnon"). In the middle there isn't agreement: at one extreme are those who want as many cases as possible determined by the MoS; at the other are those who want as many cases as possible determined by common usage. I see Blueboar's recent edit (being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Article Titles) as a bold (and brave) attempt to set out some principles; not perfect but a good starting point. Those who object to this approach should explain how else we are going to achieve the consensus we need. It isn't going to come by editors just sticking rigidly to either of the extreme views: "always the MoS", "always common usage". Peter coxhead (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking the discussion to MOS did make some sense, but his bold proposal still seems to be making it about titles, when he said "While MoS guidance generally applies to all parts of an article, including the title, it is important to remember that Wikipedia does make exceptions to the MOS when consensus indicates that an exception should be made." Why is it more important to keep exceptions in mind when talking about title than other times? Shouldn't titles always be styled the same way as the text in the article? If we want to make an exception in how a name or trademark is styled, shouldn't the exception be make irrespective of whether it's in the title or the text? And the example "if the English language sources that discuss a particular musician commonly use a non-standard styling when mentioning that musician, our articles should follow the sources, and use that non-standard styling" seems to exactly contradict MOS:TM, rather than point to occasional exceptions; I presume it was for how to style k.d. lang, the registered trademark of Kathryn Dawn Lang, which we do treat an as exception, not as the rule as this would make it. I agree that it would be OK for the MOS to mention where exceptions might be likely; so let's discuss that, and not conflate it with title issues. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely that there shouldn't be a distinction between title and text. But the cause is that WP:AT is written in terms of balancing different principles whereas the MOS is written more dogmatically. So long as this is the case, editors who are unhappy with the apparent rigidity of the MOS are bound to want to use the more reasonable-seeming WP:AT as the starting point. So let's discuss at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style how to make the MOS similarly open to balancing and accommodation between its preferred styles and the styles used in reliable sources, avoiding the extremes either way. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You guys are still sort of missing what I am saying. Article titles are sometimes proper nouns. "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" should have the MOS applied to it as an article title. Proper nouns should NOT be stylized to abide by the MOS. The MOS should apply to all article titles EXCEPT proper nouns. By using the word title without making the distinction between proper nouns and other article titles, this conversation gets confusing. Xkcdreader (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction. What in MOS conflicts with TITLE? What is MOS is not applicable to proper nouns? I'm sure that MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM talk about proper nouns or names; do we need to modify what they say? Dicklyon (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont see anything in MOS:CAPS that really matters. I would argue MOS:TM should be almost completely scrapped. Wikipedia should not capitalize words that are rendered lower case in every other form. Xkcdreader (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Boson. Each publishing house has its own house style of how to treat caps and punctuation, and such house styles are applied as much to content as to titles. There is the universal convention that proper nouns are capitalised in English, so we can talk about "k.d. lang" as a unique exception. But otherwise, as we know, there's very often no "common style", and there is the potential for huge disruption if and when fans KE$HA inter alia start demanding their "proper" but in our eyes "vanity" stylisations. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the first half. I agree with you that "often there is no 'common style'." In those cases the MOS should apply. However stylized names should be used. I firmly believe the Ke$sha article should reside at Ke$sha because that is her name. The redirect already exists so... people who type it without the $ would be redirected to the correct page. A quick survey shows 1) her official website 2)youtube 3)twitter 4) mtv 5)lastfm 6)imdb all use Ke$ha. Wikipedia is the odd one out, and as any encyclopedia should not be inventing its own interpretation of her name. Xkcdreader (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no... Wikipedia is hardly the odd one out. A simple google news search shows that a lot of reliable news sources style her name Kesha. The question is whether enough do so to offset the sources that style it Ke$ha. That's the sort of examination we need to do to determine if there is a COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

“But otherwise, as we know, there's very often no ‘common style’”—in which case, of course, this would not apply and would change nothing. I really don’t understand this objection; I said right in the original proposal, “if there is one”. Since Kesha’s being used as an example: Neither “Kesha” nor “Ke$ha” is overwhelmingly prevalent in suitable sources, so the standard rules of English and good sense apply. —Frungi (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support, more or less. We are not a publishing house. We are a collection of others' already published information, not a creator of information. We should always be guided by our sources. Our sources should trump style guidelines that we ourselves made up. I'm not tied to the proposed formulation, preferring "modified to have article titles use the most commonly used orthography (capitalization, punctuation, etc.) used in the best sources" , but am not much dissuaded by Boson. Generally agree fully with Blueboar in his measured support.

  Am I mistaken in my impression that the issue in debate relates only to article titles that take or use the name of a person or product, and never applies to an academic subject? That the issue could be sidestepped by non-minimalist titling? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  Per this and other comments, I’ve edited the proposal somewhat to hopefully clarify the intent. And yes: like WP:COMMONNAME, this primarily concerns proper nouns. —Frungi (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  Er, I think SmokeyJoe's got it all wrong. Yes, we are guided by what other sources give us, and we do recycle the news amongst other stuff. But we do publish: we're an encyclopaedia, much like Britannica. Don't try to pretend Britannica doesn't have a style guide; we all have one. The only significant difference is our organisation. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support per various above, but particularly SmokeyJoe's argument that we are not a creator of information.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Quite simply, what I mean to say with this proposal is this: When an exception to a rule occurs consistently enough, it should be considered part of the rule. —Frungi (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I support a coordinated (although sufficiently flexible) approach to style in this sprawling international project. That's what we have now, largely. Smokey, I cannot agree that "we are not a publishing house". I doubt you'd find many legal authorities agreeing either. Tony (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• We're not a publishing house, because we don't publish anything for anyone else. In fact, we don't publish. We Wikipedians make a single product. Wikimedia, who are not us, publish it.

  We should reflect our sources over a made up MOS because our sources' diversity is a strength, and because the MOS is a minority view that is not very good in difficult cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Word games. Once again, the difference is solely in our organisation. We have products; – they are called 'articles'. Whether it's WP or WM that has the legal responsibility for the product, the fact is someone does. Other publishers have an editor-in-chief who decides on the house style. Here, the manual of style is defined 'locally' by an unwieldy and nebulous committee called 'the community'. Instead of being arrived at by one person's dictat, it's formed by a compromise called consensus. That's why the MOS is often indeterminate or wishy-washy. If you would rather that Jimbo (or some other individual) had that decisive role, that's one thing, but don't pretend we're all that different from other publishers in the key respect. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 14:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would prefer that article authors, informed by their sources, be given more respect in article titling, and that the MOS be considered guidance and not law. No one person should dictate over the contributions of others. No unrepresentative group should either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• We need a manual of style that has coherence. All publications do. Some may rely solely on the Chicago Manual of Style, some may use the AP one, for example. Others, like us, mix and match. But to have one based on the source for each and every individual subject or topic without overall coherence would be utter nonsense. Style 'rules' may have exceptions, but exceptions mustn't be allowed to drive style. You acknowledge we already have a whimsical or hotch potch style; adopting your approach would make it more whimsical and more subject to violent disputes, not less.

  OH, the last time I looked, the MOS was guidance, not "law". Having one person to lord over style questions would make it "law", but it does have the advantage of avoiding Gigibytes of discussion, argumentation, and eventually multiplication of Arbcom cases. ;-) -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• MOS guidance I'm all for. Looking at Talk:Star Trek into Darkness I see editors attempting to overenforce. Exceptions should be easier than that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Smokey, you say "No one person should dictate over the contributions of others." This is a not-uncommon mantra used by those who may be unfamiliar with standard requirements in the professional publishing industry; this includes even less formal, less academic registers than WP articles, such as news outlets, which all strive for stylistic and formatting consistency and cohesion, since they underpin the authority of a text, to a certain extent. But let's make something clear: no one on WMF sites is beaten over the head concerning non-compliance with our style guides. (If they are, tell me and I'll be the first to pipe up and object.) A polite request or reminder is about all that is acceptable, unless there's wilful and mass editing that really inconveniences the gnomes who do so much housecleaning here. Please see en.WP's WP:CIVILITY code, which governs the avoidance of direct and personal criticism of others' editing. Tony (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, you sound reasonable as always. I'm not sure what you think I meant that you seem to be disagreeing with. If its ugly (incivil) disputes over whether an aspect of the MOS should be decisive or not, I think they tend to occur in contested RM discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: "We need a manual of style that has coherence."... I agree. However, I see nothing incoherent about saying "WP:COMMONNAME applies to styling in titles". It seems very coherent to me. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems incredibly coherent to say that proper names should overrule style guidelines, and the guidelines apply to everything that isn't a proper noun. Simple, concise, and easy to understand and apply. All the rule has to say is "the manual of style does not overrule proper nouns orthographies." Translations are a different matter. Would anyone argue that "Jay-Z" should have a lower case Z? Xkcdreader (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines do, and should, apply to proper nouns. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The question is to what extent they should. I say they shouldn’t override common use. But some editors say they should override everything. As it is, it’s somewhat unpredictable and inconsistent: One title has a letter capitalized mid-word because of WP:COMMONNAME, the next de-capitalizes a word because of our MOS, the next replaces a “&” with “and”, the next has a Talk page debate over how much weight to give the MOS… it’s kind of a mess, and it’s distressing that there’s not much consensus on what to do about it. —Frungi (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What examples are you referring to? One that annoys me is the film dot the i, for which there is no good reason for styling in lowercase, it's purely aesthetic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Perfect example of what I was saying and why this change would be beneficial. This one doesn’t even seem to fall under COMMONNAME (with or without the change), as I’m finding a lot of Dot the I, Dot the i, and even Dot The I on Google. My proposal here would have us go with the MOS on that one since there does not seem to be a prevalent orthography in common use. —Frungi (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so - I think all we'd end up there is an argument because of the various sourcable orthographies, and we'd probably end up reverting to the "official" orthography (much as we have now, due to "consensus" in a recent move request). At the moment, WP:TITLEFORMAT/WP:NCCAPS is clear, and it is clear that is what we should be following in this case (despite "consensus"). I don't think changing the guideline would have had any effect on that, and I think we'd risk a lot more by changing it than we'd gain. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a fundamental difference of opinion that we will never agree on. Some of us think we should strive for internal consistency above all else, in all cases, and others think we should be an encyclopedia that documents actual usage. One that annoys me is Pretty_Maids_All_in_a_Row which should be Pretty_Maids_all_in_a_row. We can have redireccts so people don't get lost, but I believe the title at the top of an article should clearly document the actual stylization of proper nouns. People shouldnt have to go hunting through an article to see that Ebay or Ipod are capitalized that way because of wikipedia editors. We have already made exceptions for eBay, iPod, k. d. lang, why are these other things like "dot the i" and "Pretty Maids all in a row" considered lesser cases. I think the correct way to be internally consistent would be to follow the commonname, which means iPod, eBay is the RULE not the exception. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that movie title example per this very proposal: No one calls it that. Because of that, this discussion is probably the wrong place to suggest changing that title. I suggest starting a new discussion on this matter. —Frungi (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The cases for "iPod" and "eBay", and indeed "k.d. lang", are not the same as for "Pretty Maids All in a Row", which is correctly styled per WP:AT and WP:NCCAPS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If I say "the rules are wrong" and you cite more rules, this goes nowhere. Pretty Maids all in a row should be no different than k.d. lang. Xkcdreader (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The "rules" are formed by consensus, and I see no argument for an exception here, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you have a look at WP:NCCAPS it explains why we have uniformity in naming composition titles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NCCAPS is precisely the rule we are claiming is broken. Or in reality, being over enforced. "adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility" Writing a movie title with the correct capitalization does not make wikipedia "less credible." The rule also starts "In general" which means it should be applied with some intelligence. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is broken. "In general" allows for reasonable exceptions to be made. However, there would have to be convincing consensus for us not to apply the guideline. The system works. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The system should work... the problem is that there are a few over-zealous editors who are un-willing to ever accept a consensus that says: "In this case, WP:COMMONNAME indicates that we should set the MOS guidance to one side and follow the styling used by a significant majority of reliable sources." Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Common name doesn't (and shouldn't) affect style. As I keep pointing out - this is covered at WP:TITLEFORMAT. Any change (if any is to be made) should be effected there, or perhaps more appropriately at WP:NCCAPS. If you include it at WP:COMMONNAME, you may as well throw WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:NCCAPS out of the window. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And that statement shows why the "system is broken"... WP:COMMONNAME most definitely does apply to style. Applying WP:COMMONAME to style does not mean we have to "throw WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:NCCAPS out the window", it simply means there are exceptions to both. We normally follow WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:NCCAPS (indeed we should follow them)... except when WP:COMMONNAME indicates otherwise. This exception isn't going to occur very often, but it is an exception that can occur, and we need to account for it. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break - COMMONNAME applies to style

Why do you think that WP:COMMONNAME applies to style? WP:COMMONNAME is used to determine the title, and WP:TITLEFORMAT is used to determine the format (style) of that title. (Both are parts of WP:AT) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

But, even if you were right, it would not be appropriate to include the suggested proposal at WP:COMMONNAME as it would override the "normal" procedure of following WP:TITLEFORMAT amd WP:NCCAPS, and make the exception the rule. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) There are several reasons why WP:COMMONNAME applies to style... all related to the core principles laid out in this policy... a) Recognizability: when a significant majority of reliable sources all present a subject's name using a specific styling, that styling is the most recognizable styling of the subject's name. Our readers will be surprised if they find that the article title does not use that common styling. b) Naturalness: since the COMMONNAME is most recognizable, it is what most article writers will use in other, related articles. c) Precision: when a particular styling is intentionally adopted by the subject of an article, that intentional styling becomes part of the subject's "official name". "Official names" are the most precise usage (and actually should be used... unless WP:COMMONNAME indicates otherwise).

In other words... by using the WP:COMMONNAME for our title, we achieve three of the five basic principles that form the heart of this policy. When we don't follow WP:COMMONAME (and instead follow the MOS) we do not achieve these principles. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Re your next comment: it would override the "normal" procedure of following WP:TITLEFORMAT amd WP:NCCAPS, and make the exception the rule. That is exactly the point. COMMONNAME already "overrules" several other aspects of this policy. It is is already the "rule" (and has been the for a long time). It is not a "rule" that applies very often... but when it does, it is the "rule". Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I note you miss out consistency, which is the one point that is more relevant to styling than the others. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

OK... let me address Consistency: First, we have to remember that we are talking about names (used either as the entire title, or as part of a descriptive title). Namesare, by their nature, inconsistent. We see this inconsistency most often in spelling... one person may spell her name "Elizabeth", another may spell it "Elisabeth", a third may spell it "Elysybeth". But the inconsistency does not stop with spelling... it does not happen often, but sometimes people style their names inconsistently: One person may style his name "John", another may style it "jOhn", while a third may style it "j-oHn".

Now to discuss policy... As the AT policy says, the ideal title will meet all five of our principles at the same time... unfortunately this is not always possible. In such cases we have to give more weight to some of the principles, and less weight to others. In such cases we go with the title that will achieve as many of the principles as possible. As I noted above... In cases where there is a COMMONNAME... using that COMMONNAME achieves three out of the five (Recognizability, Naturalness and Precision). Conforming the name to MOS only achieves one of the five (consistency). Therefore, when there is a COMMONNAME, we should give less weight to the principle of consistency than the other principles. We should use the COMMONNAME as our title.

There is another thing to consider... something that is not (but probably should be) noted in the policy... there are actually two kinds of consistency... internal consistency (being consistent from one Wikipedia to another) and external consistency (being consistent with sources outside of Wikipedia). We should try to achieve both kinds of consistency... but if they conflict, I would give precedence to external consistency. And if we do that... then following WP:COMMONNAME would actually be more consistent than following MOS. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The key point for me about WP:COMMONNAME is that, like WP:AT as a whole, it requires a balance to be struck between the five principles. Consistency is indeed important, not just in styling but in choosing the names of articles in a given area. But consistency doesn't over-ride the other principles; it's just one of the factors to be considered. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with viewing WP:AT as a whole, alongside other relevant subject-specific guidelines, hence my objection the proposed addition which singles out the sourcing of style under the WP:COMMONNAME banner. --15:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Robsinden (talk • contribs)

The problem is that we already single out COMMONNAMES and give them preference. I'll rephrase what I said above... COMMONNAME does not "overrule" TITLEFORMAT and NCCAPS... it outweighs them. The idea that we examine and defer to reliable sources to settle disputes is a fairly fundamental one to Wikipedia... it is an idea that lies behind all three of our core content policies, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (especially in determining DUE WEIGHT)... in title disputes, the idea is expressed through the concept of WP:COMMONNAME. Thus, when balancing the various principles, rules and guidance stated in this policy, we give a lot of weight to the concept of COMMMONNAME. We don't ignore the other principles, rules and guidance... we simply give COMMONNAME a lot more weight. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where this idea comes from the COMMONNAME outweighs anything. It has always been a strategy in support of the recognizability and naturalness criteria, as it states; that's all. And it has never been about styling. Look at the examples. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Rob—WP:TITLEFORMAT is “used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles.” I was going to point out how WP:COMMONNAME enforces these principles, but Blueboar did so better than I would. Now, if COMMONNAME did not apply to orthography as you say, why would we, for instance, include quotation marks in the title of Toys "R" Us? —Frungi (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be silly to infer a general principal from the name of one article. Anyway, sources are all over the map on that one, with straight and curly single and double quotes, with and without spaces around the quoted R, with no quotes, etc. Is it our principle to see which of all those is most common and follow it? I don't think it ever has been, nor would it make sense in the context of our house style. Their own web site (and many others) uses straight double quotes, with no space (Toys"R"Us); we provide that as a redirect, but stick closer to normal English styling in the title per MOS:TM, and straight double quotes are pretty normal in our style, so if we're going to represent their name, how else would be we do it? Leave out the quotes altogether? Doesn't seem like a great choice, but some sites do that. Whatever the strategy is, if it has some generality we could make sure that MOS:TM covers it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

All right, it was a bad example. But I think my point still stands: WP:TITLEFORMAT applies to title formatting in cases where other considerations (such as WP:COMMONNAME) do not. So it’s a faulty argument to say that one or the other universally should or should not apply to formatting. —Frungi (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

My point is, and has been, that when it takes admin intervention to capitalize the i in "Star Trek into Darkness" SOMETHING is broken. I don't really care which document we are arguing about. Put the exception in commonname, put the exception in titleformat, it doesn't matter, and the debate over where it put it is designed to cloud the issue. This is the stupid star trek debate in disguise. Rob is still arguing the MOS should overrule capitalizing the I. All this is, is the exact same conversation, over again, except now we are trying to prevent the last shitstorm from continuing every single time this issue arises. SOMETHING IS WRONG. If nothing was wrong we wouldn't be here. Something needs to be changed to make it easier to overrule a small stubborn group of people who wont listen to common sense. Xkcdreader (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, I don’t think so. I agree that the problems at Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness were symptomatic of the issue I was trying to address here, but I think you have it backwards—that debate was really largely about this concept, not the other way around. If you see arguments being made here that you saw there, that’s because this is the appropriate forum for them. And what’s being debated here isn’t “where to put it,” but whether it’s true that titles following a common name should also follow a common orthography. Where it belongs can be hashed out once that’s settled. —Frungi (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

you are right, this debate is an abstraction level higher than that one. my point still stands that it is the same people, and it just moved here. regardless of where the debate takes place, it is the same debate. aka "Should stylistic orthography override MOS capitalization rules." It's literally the exact same conversation, we just abstracted it to be more general. Xkcdreader (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That’s why I opened it here, where a more appropriate audience could see it and participate, and where the results could benefit the project in general. Both of these are less likely with a debate on one specific article.

Now back to what I was saying: WP:TITLEFORMAT applies in cases where concepts like WP:COMMONNAME do not. If it is possible for COMMONNAME to be interpreted as applying to the common formatting of a common name (and several editors have said they do interpret it so), it cannot be argued that either one universally supersedes the other. But COMMONNAME should be explicit in whether or not it may be applied to formatting, and not be left open to such interpretation. —Frungi (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

X, are you arguing for a Star Trek exception? Or for an exception that says an admin can override what the community would otherwise do? It's not clear we want either, just because it's what happened in one case. Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: "what the community would otherwise do"... that is the issue. We are trying to determine what the community should "otherwise do". Half of us say "Give more weight to TITLEFORMAT (and the MOS in general)"... the other half say "Give more weight to COMMONNAME". That disagreement is what needs to be resolved. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

4Kids Entertainment

Hi! An editor moved 4Licensing Corporation to 4Kids Entertainment. The edit summary was "(4Licensing Corporation moved to 4Kids Entertainment: Even when a company is change, we use the name that's most used in reliable sources per WP:UCN. Therefore 4Kids Entertainment should be the article title.)" - The company had changed its name to 4Licensing Corporation after a bankruptcy.

Is this the best solution? I believed that if a company changes its name, the article must use the current name. Remember how Sears Tower became Willis Tower?

But if an organization becomes defunct then one uses the most well known name even if it wasn't the final one used. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree; we cannot sacrifice factual accuracy to policy, that is a form of WP:OR. This isn't a minor dispute about spelling or spacing or the like, but an actual, total name change that should be reflected in the article title. oknazevad (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for WP:COMMONNAME, but that's not the issue here, unless it can be shown that reliable sources specifically refer to the re-incorporated company as 4Kids. But even then, it's a distinct entity, isn't it? The idea is to minimize confusion, not to cause it as the 4Kids title does. —Frungi (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

After these responses, I just went ahead and moved it WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

U.S. metropolitan areas and OMB statistical areas

Another user and I have gotten into a dispute (at this section on my talk page) over the proper titles for articles about Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States. The specific dispute relates to the article that currently has the unwieldy title "North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area", but it also applies to some other articles about U.S. metropolitan areas.

Metropolitan Statistical Areas are defined and officially named by the federal government's Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The most recent directive on naming is OMB Bulletin No. 13-01: Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas, dated February 28, 2013. The names listed in that directive all include two-letter abbreviations for the state(s) in which the Metropolitan Statistical Area is located. Examples of this usage include "North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area", "Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area", and "New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area". The issue at hand is how to identify the U.S. state in the title of a Wikipedia article that is singularly focused on a particular Metropolitan Statistical Area and do not address other aspects of the "metropolitan area". Choices are:

A - Use the exact name given by OMB, including two-letter abbreviation, as in "North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area" or "Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area". Statements in support of this position that have been provided on my talk page include "I object to using the term "Metropolitan Statistical Area" with a name that is not the OMB designated MSA name" and "I don't think we should change official MSA names." It is asserted that "Almost correct names merely create confusion over the proper name."

B - Spell out the full name of the state (where it is deemed necessary to include the state name in the article title). My stated reason for this choice is: Wikipedia's standards, including the Wikipedia Manual of Style, apply here and have precedence over U.S. government usage. As discussed at WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:ACRONYMTITLE, abbreviations are not appropriate in article titles unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. The state of Florida is known primarily as "Florida", not as "FL", so the abbreviation is not appropriate. Additionally, I note that the two-letter abbreviations (which I refer to on my talk page as U.S. postal abbreviations, although I must acknowledge that now-a-days they are used more widely) can be ambiguous and confusing, particular to people outside the United States, but also to some Americans. For example, "CA" may mean "California" to the U.S. Postal Service, but in some other contexts it means "Canada". Many Americans get confused about abbreviations like "AR" (Arkansas, not Arizona) and "AK" (Alaska, not Arkansas); "MO" (Missouri, not Montana) and "MS" (Mississippi, not Massachusetts or Missouri) and "MA" (Massachusetts, not Maryland).

Instead of continuing to talk past each other on a user talk page, I'm looking for comments from the community on the best approach for naming these pages. --Orlady (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Statistical areas in the United States and Puerto Rico are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Most recently on February 28, 2013, the OMB issued OMB Bulletin No. 13-01: Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas defining 1098 statistical areas.

Articles about a specific OMB statistical area should use the name defined in the OMB document, such as the North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area. Articles more generally about a metropolitan area should use a generic name such as the Sarasota metropolitan area, and should avoid using the term "statistical" to avoid confusion with the OMB defined statistical area.  Buaidh  05:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Once we get your question answered, we can discuss the use of a dash, emdash or some other character in those names. But to your point, what is in a name? What is different between the Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Las Vegas–Paradise, NV MSA? Is a source that changes the names every 5 or 10 years reliable or good? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

[Smile]. I believe you and I agree that it's best to leave matters like hyphens out of this, and deal with one issue at a time. As for the frequent name changes, you may be understating the problem. This particular Florida area received new names in 2007, 2009, and 2013! --Orlady (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the office of the federal government responsible for assigning names is about as reliable a source as you can get for official federal names. —Frungi (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll correct you then. Do you really believe that US citizens actually use that garbage? The common name for the area is what they use and believe me it is less convoluted, more stable, better know and who knows what else. While it may be reliable for the current OMB books, that's as far as it goes. Well, local governments may need to use it on Federal paperwork, but that is not he issue here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don’t know anything about the OMB, but I'm going to say option B, unless there’s a more concise name that could be used (which would be my preference). State names should be fully spelled out in encyclopedic titles for the benefit of the reader. —Frungi (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You prefer the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia-West Virginia-Pennsylvania Combined Statistical Area to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA Combined Statistical Area? I don't think the former adds much clarity.

To have an interest in the (rather obscure) U.S. statistical areas, one could be reasonably be expected to have a basic understanding of the political divisions of the United States and ISO 3166-2 state codes.

OMB 13-01 is the first major change in U.S. statistical area definitions in decades. Political considerations have delayed these changes for years.

I think we should respect the federal designations. We are not creating titles for articles; we are naming articles for existing entities. I think it is tremendously arrogant to think that an individual Wikipedia editor knows better than a national panel.  Buaidh  06:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It’s also arrogant to think that an individual editor knows better than a consensus, which is what we’re trying to establish here. Anyway, I disagree. The former title leaves no question as to the meaning, and the latter contains a series of letters that may be meaningless to some readers. I don't think there's any doubt which title benefits readers more—and whatever the aim of those official names was, this is our aim. But for the record, I’m not a fan of either name, which is why I brought up the possibility of a more concise name in my first comment; or, of course, they could be listed under more general articles. —Frungi (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with an article entitled the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. What I do have a problem with is a bastardized version of an OMB statistical area name.  Buaidh  07:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it all comes down to the question of which is more important: adherence to federal names, or accessibility to readers. I’ll leave that for others to discuss, as I believe I’ve made my own stance clear. —Frungi (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand completely. I think the OMB statistical area names are quite long enough as is. ISO 3166-2 codes are an international standard, not just an American secret. If you don't know what SD means, then you probably don't know where South Dakota is either. We create confusion when we try to be too accommodating. Yours aye,  Buaidh  07:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

But those codes are not unique (e.g. California/Canada), and the OMB names don’t mention that they’re using that standard. In certain contexts, yes, using those codes is umabiguous, but article titles lack much context. —Frungi (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been creating articles for the U.S. states, counties, and statistical areas for more than six years and 130k edits. Every article I've had a hand in begins with a complete explanation of the location and significance of the region. You just can't put an entire article into the article title. The title cannot convey all information about a statistical area.

Most commonly, readers link to a statistical area article from a national, state, county, or city article or list. The referring article provides a context for the statistical area article. Not many readers are going to search directly for the North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area, with or without the Florida. If you change the article title to the North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area, then you really should add the nation since there are many Floridas. Now you have North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, Florida, United States Metropolitan Statistical Area. At some point you need to give up. Yours aye,  Buaidh  08:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that none of these is a suitable title. Regardless, state or other regional abbreviations are inappropriate in article titles. —Frungi (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Suppose we add the state names to each statistical area article title (hopefully Rhode Island will suffice in lieu of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations), and suppose we alter the OMB hyphenation. Do we then explain at the beginning of each article that the title of the article is not the actual name of the OMB statistical area? Do we create REDIRECTs from each of the OMB statistical area names to the statistical area article so readers searching by OMB statistical area name can locate the article. I certainly think we should.  Buaidh  09:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I meant that I'd prefer not to use OMB names in our titles at all, à la Washington metropolitan area, though this is just one editor's opinion. If this is what you meant, then I agree. Also, I'm not sure why OMB MSAs merit their own articles rather than being discussed in city or county articles or something, but please pardon my ignorance. —Frungi (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly a name like "Sarasota metropolitan area" would be the ideal choice. However, the content of an article by that title should be expected to cover a topic somewhat broader than the OMB definition of the Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is currently the scope of this article and many others like it. Also, the choice of a title ought to be informed by some first-hand familiarity with the region, which I lack (although I have a strong hunch that it's still thought of as the "Sarasota area").

Some of our fellow Wikipedians have endeavored to create and maintain a complete collection of articles about U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas, as well as related lists (see List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas), so there are a lot of articles with titles crafted to match an official OMB definition. As long as those articles exist with that scope, I think we need a meeting of the minds on their titles. --Orlady (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The many moves in this area that Buaidh has done recently include removing the long-standing styling with en dashes, putting the article styles at odds with WP:DASH, for no particular reason. The caps question may be more subtle, and the state designators even more so. Do we really think the OMB designations are supposed to be interpreted as official proper names, or are they essentially descriptive? To me, they're descriptive, and they style them as do because that's their style. Even if we take them to be official proper names, we should style with en dashes, as we do for so many other entities that combine names (like the San Diego–Coronado Bridge). For the article titles (though I support including state name in US city names) I'd leave the state out of these long combined-area names. North Port–Sarasota–Bradenton metropolitan statistical area would be a good descriptive title. Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That editor is also guilty of randomly inserting these definitions into articles and not bothering to update the existing articles with new names and expanding the history to show how the name, and area covered, has evolved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Any moves that this editor recently made have been a very honest attempt to update obsolete OMB statistical area titles to the OMB 13-01 standard. If there is a consensus opinion that all articles about metropolitan areas should avoid using the OMB statistical area name for the article title, then I will happily move these articles to a generic metropolitan area title. However, there currently are a number of articles that address a specific OMB statistical area such as the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Denver-Aurora, CO Combined Statistical Area. (There is no generic article for the Denver metropolitan area.) Should we:

1. Delete all articles about specific OMB statistical areas, or
2. Merge all articles about specific OMB statistical areas into generic metropolitan area articles, or
3. Keep all articles about specific OMB statistical areas, but link from/to generic metropolitan area articles.

Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring existing articles and creating new ones or inserting text into randomly selected articles is what I have seen and is contrary to what you are sating here. Also, moving articles may very well be contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In this particular instance, the name of the MSA is absurd. This local newspaper article makes that claim and strongly supports my seat-of-the-pants theory that Sarasota is the central city of the metro area. (It's certainly the only one that most non-Floridians have heard of.) It seems that Sarasota, North Port, Bradenton, and Venice are all incorporated municipalities with population above 50,000, so all of them qualify as "principal cities". North Port has the largest population, at 54,200, so it is now deemed to be the primary city of the metro area. Bradenton and Sarasota are only slightly smaller, at 53,471 and 52,000, respectively, according to the newspaper piece. However, it seems that North Port has a huge geographic area and relatively low population density, while Sarasota is a reasonably densely populated place that has some claim on being called a "central city". The newspaper writer refers to the people who created the MSA designation as "duh-mographers", and I can see his point.

All that aside, I'd like some consensus on the binary question I asked here: whether OMB's use of abbreviations like "FL" makes it OK (or even necessary, as Buaidh contends) to use these abbreviations in titles of articles about MSAs, or if state names should be spelled out when the state is identified in the title. --Orlady (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of an editor, including this editor, who likes using the OMB 13-01 statistical area names for U.S. metropolitan areas. However, numerous federal, state, and local agencies use the OMB definitions to produce reports and statistics. If I state in an article that the population of the Denver metropolitan area was 3,214,218 as of July 1, 2012, to what definition of the Denver metropolitan area am I referring? The Colorado metropolitan areas article alone mentions seven definitions of the Denver metropolitan area, and there are many more.  Buaidh  21:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be possible to write content about the population of a Metropolitan Statistical Area without having an article solely about the OMB definition of that area and a title to match the OMB definition. --Orlady (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely yes. The question is how we reference and link the OMB statistical areas.  Buaidh  21:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

New York metropolitan area, which is linked for refs to the MSA, is a good example. --Orlady (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of being pilloried, let me suggest that we give each article about a U.S. metropolitan area an MOS compliant generic name such as the New York metropolitan area, the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, or the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Then, let’s merge existing articles about specific OMB defined statistical areas into the relevant metropolitan area article under the relevant one of the following three subsection headings: Metropolitan Statistical Area, Micropolitan Statistical Area, or Combined Statistical Area. Finally, let’s REDIRECT the official OMB statistical area names to the relevant article subsection. Virtually all of this currently exists. Only a handful of articles require renaming or merger into a metropolitan area article.  Buaidh  22:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. We'd still need to work out how to style the official names in the articles, and in places that link through those official names, if any, but that will be less angst-provoking than title discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the best direction to take with these articles. It will take a good bit of work, however, to create appropriate articles for all U.S. metro and metro-like areas, as many lack suitable articles. --Orlady (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A total of 602 of the 1083 OMB defined U.S. statistical areas comprise a single county. For most of these 602 core based statistical areas, a simple one paragraph subsection in the county article should suffice to describe the statistical area. Please see User:Buaidh/sandbox#Test 5 and Polk County, Florida for examples.  Buaidh  14:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: A total of 38 of these 602 single-county Core Based Statistical Areas encompass the primary city for a more extensive Combined Statistical Area. These 38 single-county CBSAs will also be documented in their metropolitan area article.  Buaidh  16:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong! These areas evolve over time and the history of the evolution is encyclopedic and needs to be tracked in an article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My goodness; God has spoken. You are correct. OMB statistical areas do evolve, but the trend is to grow more extensive. Most of the single county OMB statistical areas have never been a part of a more extensive Core Based Statistical Area, so there is no evolution to document. We should most certainly document any exceptions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  01:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A further caveat regarding redirects is that some existing redirects for MSAs and CSAs are grossly misleading. Just one example: Until I turned the redirect into a stub a few weeks back, Albany-Corvallis-Lebanon, Oregon Combined Statistical Area was a redirect pointing to Corvallis, Oregon (I noticed that redirect because it was in a category; it also had backlinks), which is just one of the principal cities in a CSA that comprises two counties. --Orlady (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: Let me add a (perhaps controversial) personal observation. While the evolution of an OMB statistical area may be very interesting to local residents and urban historians, it is of limited practical use. Whenever the OMB renames or redefines a statistical area, federal and state agencies revise historical statistics to match the new definition.  Buaidh  02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a current-information manual or guidebook. History -- and historical background -- is an important topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Changes over time in the OMB definition of a metropolitan area may seem like a trivial historical topic, but the evolution of the metropolitan area itself can be a topic of tremendous historical interest -- and the changes in the federal definition are a documentable indicator of that change. --Orlady (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As a history nerd, I obviously find taxonomic evolution interesting. I just doubt that the casual user would find it of much interest. Metropolitan areas evolve with no regard for the taxonomic judgement of the "experts".  Buaidh  03:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Orlady is here confusing the metropolitan area itself with the OMB’s label for its statistics. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the label is arbitrary; the history of the area itself may be of great interest, but the history of how the government has labeled it is very likely not. I don’t think anyone is suggesting limiting encyclopedic coverage of the actual areas themselves. —Frungi (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm confused. The changes over the years in the official designations for the Sarasota metropolitan area may be rather absurd, but in many metro areas these changes form part of the record of urban expansion and urban sprawl. --Orlady (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to belabor this subject, but I think you both have good points. The OMB is charged with coming up with a politically correct method of designating statistical areas that is consistent across 1098 areas. Their judgement is historically significant for many, but not all, statistical areas. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• We should avoid two letter state abbreviations. We do not use them in the article names like Sterling Heights, Michigan, Denver, Colorado or Santa Monica, California. There is no reason to use them in metro-area names. We should also not slavishly follow the federal government in article names. Federal definitions are only one of many ways in which metro-areas are defined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If we merge the OMB statistical area articles into the metropolitan area articles as I suggested above, this ceases to be an issue. Yours aye,  Buaidh  01:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with Buaidh's last comment. I question whether the individual statistical areas are really notable enough for stand-alone articles, and think the information would be better presented by merging it into the metropolitan area articles (per WP:PRESERVE). That said... If the individual statistical area articles are considered notable enough... then we are dealing with a "official name" vs "descriptive title" issue. Since the OMB abbreviates, the abbreviations are part of the "official name" of each entity... and if we choose to use the "official name" as the title, then we should use the abbreviations. However, we don't have to use the "official name". We are allowed to come up with our own "descriptive title", and use that instead. If we do that... I would not use the full names of the states, however. Using the full names would make for unwieldy (overly long) titles, and the principle of conciseness applies here. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If the article title differs from the OMB statistical area name, we do of course need to point that out in the article and link the OMB statistical area name to the article. Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a list of existing and proposed articles for the metropolitan areas of the United States and Puerto Rico at User:Buaidh/U.S. metropolitan areas. Please post your comments at User talk:Buaidh. Thanks,  Buaidh  23:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Textiles names - cloth, fabric or textile?

Hello, I've been thinking about this for a while now, but not really sure where best to raise it for discussion. My question is:

Should textile articles have a consistent disambiguation? And if so, what should that disambiguation be? For example, we have three disambiguations, all of which are equally valid:

• Tweed (cloth)
• Chiffon (fabric)
• Calico (textile)

Would it make sense if all disambiguated textile article titles had one consistent disambiguation? And which one of the three should it be? Also let me know if this should be discussed elsewhere - maybe it is already? I looked all around but couldn't find somewhere that seemed a logical place for this discussion. I also posted this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Textile Arts but it looked like nobody had even looked at the talk page for a long time so I'm not sure anyone will see it there. Mabalu (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There is also (material) (as in Alcantara (material) or Rawhide (material), but this is more usually used for general materials - such as Cob (material) and scientific/physical articles, e.g. Orthotropic material. Mabalu (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've wondered about the same question, because it's annoying not to know which disambiguation parameter a particular article uses. My personal inclination is to prefer "cloth". "Textile" seems overly broad, as it includes materials like geotextile that are very unlike calico or tweed. The word "fabric" seems more formal than "cloth", which might recommend it, but because "fabric" has other meanings that don't have anything to do with cloth (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fabric lists meanings related to building structure and geology), it might not always resolve the ambiguity. --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like over-consistency to me. As far as I know, the terms "cloth", "fabric" and "textile" are interchangeable, but I am not an expert... I suppose there might be some technical difference between the terms (and if so we should use the appropriate term in each case)... but, if not, I don't think it matters which term we use.

The reality is that the average reader is not likely to care whether we use "Tweed (cloth)" or "Tweed (fabric)"... the average reader is unlikely to search using either term. What the average reader will search for is the unadorned: "Tweed". However since there are multiple articles that could use this title (such as Tweed (film), Tweed (Fender), Tweed River, Boss Tweed, etc.) we have to add something to further disambiguate. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree to an extent with this - I just wondered if it might appear tidier and appear more professional to have a consistent term. And also whether there was a Wikipedia policy for such cases, or if any prefix will do as long as it's clear what it means. Mabalu (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No there is no policy on this... we give our editors flexibility to do what they think is best. Consistency is the weakest of our 5 principles. While consistency across article titles can be helpful, it can also be over-done (and even disruptive)... consistency just for the sake of being consistent is silly and burdensome. As far as disambiguation goes, just about any parenthetical will do as long as it clarifies what the article is about... as long as we also account for accuracy (so, for example, if there is a technical difference between a "cloth" and a "fabric", then we should account for that technical difference and use the most accurate term in the appropriate article). Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a naming convention to avoid the word “disaster” in article titles about man-made disasters

See List of accidents and disasters by death toll for data on which the below is based:

Note that the word “disaster” is already almost never used in articles about natural disasters, even if they are bona fide cases. Thus, Hurricane Katrina might be the most expensive US natural disasters, but the article is not called the “Hurricane Katrina disaster” and won’t ever be.

The reason for the proposal is that the use of the word “disaster” in titles of WP man-made disaster articles is already fairly rare, is capricious where it is used, and is subject to recentism and hysteria, as well as lack of logic in so far as fatality proportions. Thus, we presently have a situation where there is a Hindenburg disaster but only have merely the Sinking of the RMS Titanic. And we have two space shuttle disasters, but only the worst air disaster on record (at Tenerife airport disaster) gets the title disaster, while the next 30-worst air disasters, until we reach a crash in 1975 that killed 188 people, are not called disasters. This word is used in perhaps 8 of the 177 air disaster articles, all of which killed more people than any space shuttle problem.

The List of accidents and disasters by death toll has lists where not only magnitude of man-made disasters is given in order, but it’s done by category and article links are given. Some interest trends and reversals can be recovered for examining this to come out with some kind of look at how WP does things.

The first obvious trend is that there are no maritime disaster articles with the name disaster. Except one: 1947 Ramdas Ship Disaster in which 625 people died, the #19th worst. Slipped though the cracks. The worst shipping disasters have killed several thousands each, but don’t get the title. Again, we have no Titanic disaster.

Another obvious terminology habit is that railway disasters are “almost always” called disasters. Of the first 19 articles with good names, all but the second largest disaster on record is called a disaster. Possibly because that one is part of a natural disaster from a tsunami.

The rest of the categories, however, are a mixed bag. The worst industrial disaster (Bhopal disaster) is called a disaster at 3800 dead, but then the word isn’t used again until Texas City Disaster at #5 with 500 dead. We end up using the word last at #124, the Boston Molasses Disaster with 21 people dead. There’s no rhyme or reason here, and I don’t believe all this is a result of the WT:search engine test. And here is a case where we probably shouldn’t be using the Google Test anyway, as Google sums-over-history and this fights with recentism, and you end up getting new and old things called “disasters” and nothing in the middle, as with Bhopal and the silly molasses thing.

There is no sense in having killer stampedes listed that killed over 1000 people even in recent times, but not call a single one of these things a disaster till you get to #22 at the Hillsborough disaster that killed only 96.

Similarly, sports events are known for riots and bleacher collapses, with loss of several hundred people at a time, but our first sports fan disaster was #8, the Port Said Stadium riot, in which 79 people died, and is now #10 1971 Ibrox disaster in which 60 died. What about the the nine riots and incidents that were worse?

Structural failures have killed up to 500 people per incident in modern times, but our first disaster article is Cavalese cable car disaster at #36 with 42 people, and we go all the way to Cave Creek disaster that killed only 14 people.

Explosions: Our first named “disaster” is the Texas City Disaster, but it’s #18 on the disaster list, it and killed only 500, which is a quarter of the worst ones. Does it deserve the title? Formally? Remember, just because these are lists of disasters doesn’t mean they all need to be called disasters in the titles. And where do we stop once we start?

I could go on, but the discussion above was prompted by a spirited debate about whether or not the recent Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown deserves the title of disaster, especially in light of the Chernobyl disaster. Is Fukushima Daiichi going to ultimately kill more people due to radiation than died at Bhopal from chemical inhalation? Unlikely. More than the Benxihu Colliery explosion (a WW II Chinese/Japanese joint occupation screwup) that killed 1500, trying to process coal for electrical power? Also unlikely.

PROPOSAL: So here is the proposal. Because all this is complicated and the number of articles with the word “disaster” is already low in all categories but rail accidents, I propose it be banned or deprecated entirely in WP:MoS. This will obviously affect rail articles more than anything, and if somebody wants to make a single historical exception for rail disasters (specifying the top #50 of all time, or something, or anything with loss of life over 100 persons), then I could live with that.

What say you? Votes and comments below. See also this same proposal on another TALK page here: [1] SBHarris 00:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any intent to use a style guideline to ban or deprecate entirely anything. Oppose turning MoS pages into de facto government pages. The best titles should be decided based upon prevailing usage in the best sources on a subject-by-subject basis. MoS pages should provide advice, guidance, explanations, logic, etc, but not law. MoS advice should be accepted or rejected on a case by case basis. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Neither Support nor Oppose... Follow WP:COMMONNAME. If a significant majority of sources call something the "Footown Disaster"... so should Wikipedia. If not then we should see if there is some other name that is more commonly used (and use that instead).

Note (and this is important), when examining the sources, we are looking to see whether the source uses the word "disaster" as part of a name for the event... not whether the source is describing the event as being a disaster. To illustrate: a source that says, "The Footown Disaster of 1912 was the most influential event in Footown's history" uses the word "disaster" as part of the event's name... but a source that says, "The fire of 1912 was the most significant disaster in Footown's history" does not. In that second sentence the word was used as a description.) Blueboar (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with following COMMONNAME where applicable. But the distinction between name and description is often not as you portray it. For example Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is what the event is commonly called, but it's not a name. Some of the capitalized ones shouldn't be, like Texas City Disaster and 1947 Ramdas Ship Disaster and Boston Molasses Disaster. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with SmokeyJoe: Terminology in the titles of these events should be based on prevailing usage regarding the specific event. I don't think the magnitude of the event is the main determinant for using the word "disaster". Oftentimes, I think the word "disaster" is used for events that defy easy characterization, such as the Hindenburg disaster -- more specific terms like "fire" and "crash" don't do full justice to what happened in that event. When the event can be named as a hurricane, earthquake, tornado or sinking ship, then the word "disaster" isn't likely to be applied. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Use COMMONNAME based on sources. Much of the proposal relies on an implied, necessary relationship between the term "disaster" and loss of human life but that is very narrowly defining the term. Jojalozzo 03:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - As others have said, just follow COMMONNAME. --B2C 21:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - per the first line "Note that the word “disaster” is already almost never used in articles about natural disasters, even if they are bona fide cases"... so if we can't find many sources with the word disaster then per WP:COMMONNAME it shouldn't be named with the word "disaster." It should take care of itself. We certainly don't want a ban on its usage if from time to time English sources use "disaster" in the description, such as the "Hindenburg Disaster."Hindenburg Museum, The Atlantic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Fyunck(click). -sche (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

May I point out that I'm being misread, above. I indeed said WP hardly ever uses the word "disaster" in articles about natural disasters, but this is not because of COMMONNAME. The WP current history of usage here is an argument against the general utility and WP use of COMMONNAME. COMMONNAME is explicitly not being followed for natural disasters now. IOW, if you really like COMMONNAME you'll go back and rename all those articles about various natural disasters, to have the word "disaster" put back into them, since that's the way they are commmonly and most often referred to outside WP (and also how they are categorized in WP). The same is true for shipping disasters. Do you all really think that the most prevalent common name for the Titanic disaster is (or ever has been) "Sinking of the RMS Titanic"? Nonsense.

I might also point out that WP is such a huge resource that it becomes self-fullfilling when it comes to an internet search on such things, so take care and use only print sources like Google scholar if you want true answers. The most COMMONNAME for Custer's last stand since that time to this, has involved either "last stand" or "massacre" but WP insists on calling it a "battle" in contradiction to COMMONNAME. In mirror fashion, the common name for Wounded Knee was "battle" until the Native American consciousness uprising of the 1970's, and thus WP has chosen the more politically correct (but hardly official) name of "massacre" for THAT incident. I take no sides, but I do observe that COMMONNAME has nothing to do with it. I simply use these examples to suggest that the idea that the naming problem solves itself, and that WP already generally follows COMMONNAME guidelines, is ridiculous. It does not. SBHarris 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

When I said "I agree with following COMMONNAME where applicable", I meant where applicable. If you read it, it's about names. Most of these article titles are descriptive. In many cases, a similar principle could apply, that we call it what others call it, in support of "recognizability" (we sometimes don't do that, as you note, for a variety of reasons). But the "most commonly called" aspect of COMMONNAME tends to be applied in a fairly heavy-handed way sometimes, to the point of minimizing consideration of the other naming criteria; so be careful what you ask for. Probably it's best to look at cases, and see where better names would be appropriate. Like "Sinking of the Titanic" would almost certainly be better than the current title with the superfluous "RMS" in it. As for when to use "disaster", decide on a case-by-case basis; no need to encode in policy or guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It is precisely because the case-by-case treatment is not working and causing a lot of argument and terrible lack of uniformity, that I'm suggesting a guideline change to help. Perhaps "policy" was too draconian. Nobody is required to follow a guideline. But someplace there should be something we point to and say (as with the deprecation of the word THE to begin articles) that we try to avoid it. As I think I noted, this arises out of complaints on the Fukushimi Daiichi nuclear "disaster" page, where some people want it to be referred to as a disaster and others don't. There is no good answer but to avoid the question entirely, and that's easily done, as we very nearly do it already (we avoid the word in titles far more than COMMONNAME would suggest we do). "Disaster", like massacre, is a judgemental and emotionally-laden word without a good definition. It's exactly the type of thing WP in other contexts attempts to avoid. Just sayin'. SBHarris 01:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: "causing a lot of argument and terrible lack of uniformity"... Could you provide a few links to some article talk pages where the arguments are taking place (so we can get a better idea of why people are arguing about it)? I have to say that my initial reaction is: I don't really see a need for uniformity in this topic area. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean, other than the fact that it makes WP look more amateurish, capricious, and silly than usual? As for examples, I already said how I got to this page: [2] [3] [4] [5]. People also show up at disaster talk pages regularly asking guidelines whether a thing should be called a disaster, and get no answer. And finally, there exist rudamentary guidelines [6] about where the "year, place, event, name" should go in an article about a disaster, and yet I can make exactly the same arguments against any guideline or uniformity in this matter, as have been made against my proposal above. This is certainly a more important matter than some officious dictim that the words in subsections of articles should be lower case if possible, except the first one. Who cares? Does this affect the utility of of the use of WP as a reference? No. Not as much as a nearly random, and certainly without guideline policy on the WP naming of major destructive events. SBHarris 21:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We look amateurish, capricious, and silly when some people make up rules in a back room and force them on articles and their writers. This is especially so when the answer to the question “Why do we do this” is “Because we have a rule”. If you could write an essay on when it is appropriate to use “disaster” in a title, and when not, I think you would be on a path to consensus, not confrontation.

If people turn up on an article talk page asking forum style questions, they should be reminded that talk pages are not forums for the subject.

If they are asking specific questions about the content, including title, of the article, they should be able to find the answers ni the existing references. In other words, every article should be able to stand alone as a complete document, based on listed references, and making all articles look like they were written from the same template is not important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that so? Well, you should go straight to WT:INFOBOX and tell them all they waste their time. And then you have work to do on the article page for which this is TALK. Specifically, there is a section called "Non-neutral but common names" (WP:POVTITLE) which gives a guideline as to when the commonality of the name of an event might overide the WP pillar against taking sides in POV debate, such as whether or not an event is (say) a massacre or a disaster. By itself it's enough to do much of what I've proposed, and certain for the eggregious cases. Why do I need an essay? There's an short essay above, and it's already too long. Although it does perform a service (I think) in showing how much WP:POVTITLE is ignored in rail accidents.

As to your general remarks about "rules" when it comes to naming conventions, they contradict much of what's in WP:MoS, as well as ordinary spelling and grammar guidelines, and so on. Most conventions in life are arbitrary, don't you know, but they are helpful anyway to save time. Example: if you have an active driver license and use it, we wouldn't be having this conversation, sinch unless you have spent a lot of time following arbritrary traffic rules, as you would already be dead. For that matter, in some states you would have a driver license (like California) and in others a driver's license (like Idaho), but nowhere in the US (or so I am told) can you get a drivers license. Isn't this a bit of confusion that is unnecessary? Yes. SBHarris 00:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I’d just like to try and clarify SBHarris’s point as I feel it may have gotten lost in his post, and please correct me if I get this wrong: Making articles look like they're written from the same metaphorical template can serve a purpose. Uniformity is beneficial over chaos in an encyclopedia, regardless of where the rules for uniformity come from; it helps both readers and editors and helps avoid arguments.

I don’t necessarily agree with this myself, but that’s what I get out of this response. That, or he hates traffic laws. —Frungi (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Providing a template, or a MoS, is a good thing. "I propose it be banned or deprecated entirely" are fighting words. Uniformity and chaos are two extremes that we do not have to choose between. Usage in reputable sources is most consistent to how we build, we are guided by our sources. "Disaster" in a title may assert a POV, and may be best avoided in many cases, but it is not for this page to talk of "banning" it. I would be much more interested in a few test cases, debated on article talk pages. Diversity in style on different pages won't cause a vehicle accident. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per Orlady. If an incident is most commonly called a "disaster", then that's what it should be called here. Why it's called a disaster instead of some other term is likely because its a catch-all that covers things that don't easily fit in more specific categories. It does not say anything about size or scope, which seems to be the mistaken assumption at the base of this proposal. oknazevad (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me point out that Orlady is largely wrong when it comes to rail disasters, since on WP, these certainly are very likely to be called disasters, in spite of many other suitable terms for rail crashes, derailments, and all the other things that the non-disaster rail accident articles, are already called. So, lack of suitable terminology is no explanation. Perhaps Orlady is right that "disaster" got used for the Hindenberg and space shuttles because these were such shocking and unusual ways of people to die (zOMG-- you go down in a flaming airship!). However, history catches up. If it is not numbers that make for a disaster but rather shock, surprise, novelty, suffering, lethality, and spectacle, it's hard to make a case why we should not have "2013 Luxor hot air balloon disaster" or "1937 Hindenburg zeppelin crash." Two thirds of the Hindenburg passengers survived, after all, but the Luxor passengers fared much worse after a longer time of being burned alive. In any case, there seems little defense for having an article called 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which isn't named as a disaster, while having Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, which was just a small part of the overall former event.

Perhaps SmokeyJoe is correct that suggesting a "ban" or "deprecation" are fighting words, and I should have suggested a guideline, template or disaster "naming convention," which is what we're all doing here in the first place, and why I have people essentially having to argue dubiously that "2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami" is the article name due to actually being the most COMMONNAME of this event in news services around the world, and history books. LOL.

So why don't you-all just pretend that I proposed a naming convention guideline (see I changed the header above), and discuss THAT? Instead of marching around like hippies protesting an idea you didn't think of first: "No ruuuuules, duuuude, that's our ruuuule here!" SBHarris 23:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Should books have full titles, or short titles when necessary?

I was looking through a few applicable guidelines for this (this page, WP:WikiProject Books, etc.) and I ran across an issue: I am unable to find a set guideline regarding article titles for books that have short name and longer names. I recently performed a few moves on some physics-related book titles that I thought would not have been considered controversial, given the fact that I was moving the articles from their short names to their long, full names. To show what I did, here's one example of a move I performed:

Liberation by Oppression to Liberation by Oppression: A Comparative Study of Slavery and Psychiatry

...the first title not being the full name of the book, and the second title being the full name. Since I could not find a guideline for this, I was doing these moves based on my own common sense which tells me this: A person's name would not be shortened for an article name, so why should a book's article title? With that mindset, I performed these moves. In addition, the titles I moved these articles to are the most common title these books are found when searching for them in search engines. So, unfortunately, since I was unable to find any guidelines to perform these moves, I went by my gut ... which told me that the best article titles are the most technical article titles. If there is no guideline set for this, it should be discussed. If there is, please cite to me the guideline that specifically frowns upon moves such as these, and I will do my best (time willing) to get an admin involved to revert my moves. Either way, I hope that a consensus can be reached that can be put into a guideline of some sort. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

People's names and book titles have absolutely nothing in common with each other, for Wikipedia purposes. We would never move "Tom Cruise" to just "Tom", but that's because many people have the name "Tom". Conversely, it's perfectly acceptable for "The Myth of Mental Illness" to be at the short title, and not "The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct", because there is no other "The Myth of Mental Illness" the book could be confused with. Including the subtitle may be necessary sometimes to prevent books from being confused with things having similar names, but there's no need for it in the large majority of cases. Also, any editor is allowed to revert Steel1943. An admin is not needed to do that. Interested in science (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We do have a convention for this at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles: "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name." The reason is that subtitles can be very long, and they're often really not an integral part of the title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; I wasn't aware of that. In that case, the book titles should be moved back, unless Steel1943 can provide a good reason for moving them. Interested in science (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)