Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.192.55.192 (talk) at 17:30, 8 September 2013 (→alternative proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:DS Courtesy Notice


RfC: Interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME

Recently I have noted that some editors evoke WP:COMMONNAME in move discussions to suggest that most common layman's usage (as determined through recognizability and usage in general public, ngram results, google hits, etc.) trumps the most common usage within the field of expertise that relates to the article topic (the sources that would be reliable for writing the article). This RfC asks you to provide your opinion and arguments about whether WP:COMMONNAME should be interpreted as an injunction to follow layman's usage if it conflicts with expert usage, and whether you think current policy should be clarified in this regard.

Survey:

  1. Comment I think this interpretation of policy is incorrect and problematic because it leads to situations in which a title can be divorced from the usage in reliable sources (e.g. all the reliable sources use one title, non-reliable sources and/or general usage uses another - so we adopt the latter in spite of all the reliable sources using the former). I think that this interpretation conflicts with the passus in WP:COMMONNAME saying that "Though official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." I take this to mean that common name tells us to judge which title is more common through using the sources that are reliable for writing about the topic, not that we must blindly follow layman's usage. Even so, because of its apparent liability to this misunderstanding, I think we should amend policy to say clearly that assessments of what is the COMMONNAME should be based on the reliable sources for the topic, not on general usage frequency in the wider public. I don't consider this a change to policy, but a clarification of the originally intended policy. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Comment. I'm not sure a hard-and-fast rule here would be helpful or address any known problem. Sometimes we should eschew common usage which is inexact or too informal, even if it is the most common (e.g. "correction fluid" not "Tipex"). But neither is esoteric expertese desirable in titling (e.g. "orangutan" not "pongo"). Maybe the OP could provide examples of where they think problems can arise. Formerip (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can arise for example in relation to names of historical persons or ethnic groups that were previously known by an incorrect, mangled or derogatory name but where historians or ethnologists have since adopted another convention - often the earlier name lives on in popular works and things named after the earlier name and will have higher frequencies of overall usage even when they no longer appear in recent literature about the subjects. I am of course coming from a specific discussion that I have in mind but I am not going to link to it because I want this to be a more general discussion of policy, not about that specific case.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither - WP:COMMONNAME is not about laymen vs specialists. When the policy uses the word "common" it is talking about frequency of usage, not the academic status of the person using it. COMMONNAME calls for an examination of all reliable sources (specialist and lay). We are looking to see the frequency of usage in reliable sources that discuss the topic, regardless of whether those sources are "lay" or "specialist". If it is clear that one term is used significantly more frequently than other terms, we use that term in our articles. We don't actually care whether that term comes from "laymen" or "specialists" (and it is important to note that sometimes the specialist term actually can be used more frequently... the prime example is in our flora articles... where layman's names for flowers is very localized, but the "scientific" name is universal).
Now, when usage is mixed, and a true COMMONNAME can not be determined, I would certainly give more weight to specialist's terms than to laymen's terms... and that weight might make a good tie breaker. But the point is that we don't give an automatic preference to either. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your notion that WP:COMMONNAME is about frequency - it is about frequency within the domain of relevant knowledge and it weighs frequency against a number of other concerns (I also disagree with the idea of reliable lay sources - at least in my field there is no such thing). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe newspapers, for example, would be reliable lay sources. It’s not uncommon for the reporter of a story to not be a highly educated expert on the subject of the story. —Frungi (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, true for some topics news could be considered a reliable source. Not for history topics though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither – while I agree that WP:COMMONNAME is widely abused and inappropriately "evoked", I don't think trying to make it more prescriptive will help. It is just one strategy in support of recognizability and naturalness. Sometimes a layman's term is more natural or recognizable than a specialist's term, but we deal with those in a variety of ways in different domains, sometimes leaning one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither – there is a need to clarify the way that WP:COMMONNAME should be used, but this isn't it. The subsection title is "Use commonly recognizable names". It expands on one of the five criteria, recognizability, to be balanced by editors in choosing an article title. The problem, as I see it, is that some editors interpret "COMMONNAME" as trumping the other four criteria, regardless of how they decide on what is "common". I agree with Dicklyon: trying to be more prescriptive isn't the answer. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well... to quibble COMMONNAME isn't just a way to determine Recognizability... it helps to determine Naturalness as well (since the most Recognizable name is also likely to be considered the most natural). That's why it is such a good tool for determining the best article title, it hits what are usually considered the two most important of the five principles. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Usually considered" by whom? Not by me. The most important should be Precision. When editors choose common but ambiguous titles we end up with more and more article titles with parenthesised disambiguation, which helps no-one as far as I can see, and certainly doesn't lead to Naturalness. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither - COMMONNAME isnt a trump card, its to be weighed up against other options, and alot of other things come into play, such as: ambiguity, inaccuracy, non-neutrality, vulgarity or pedantry. This is exactly why we have numerous naming conventions for specific problem areas. I think we need to be much clearer about this aswell. -- Nbound (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another quibble... both this policy and the NPOV policy actually implies that COMMONNAME does "trump" non-neutrality concerns. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if the common name is either incorrect or confusing - what then? Also NPOV doesnt imply any such thing, the common name isnt necessarily free from POV problems (it often is, which is why common name can help; but not always). -- Nbound (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me if you think that articles such as the Boston Massacre and the Patriot (American Revolution) should be moved because they are not neutral? The English Civil War was clearly a civil war in the way few are, so should the American Civil War be renamed War Between the States in the interests of NPOV as that is more accurate and less biased name than Civil War.-- PBS (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone actually calling either of those wars the things you said, probably not... if all sources are in agreeance to a name there, isnt any NPOV issue. if its a contentious issue, there may be a reason to choose a neutrally worded name. For example, some kind of issue between two religious groups, one side might refer to it by a negative name, one side might by a positive name, it may be best to choose a name from the middleground, as long as it is reasonably obviously referring to the thing in question. And as always, with any WP rule, use common sense! - furthermore there are other reasons (some listed above) why other names may be chosen over the "common name" -- Nbound (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a little surprised at the "neither" comments - given that I didn't phrase the question as either-or. I also didn't propose being prescriptive, merely clarifying the policy wording so that it becomes LESS prescriptive by clearly stating that COMMONNAME does not necessarily privilege overall frequency over frequency of use within the relevant domain of knowledge. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that COMMONNAME is:
    • One tool among many, and not always the best tool.
    • Best interpreted in reference to the frequency in high-quality and English-language reliable sources, not all sources or all webpages.
    • Not an excuse to choose inaccurate, imprecise, or confusing titles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither it has to be the most common usage in reliable sources. This does not mean that the sources are restricted to specialist publications, only that the source be reliable. WP:JARGON clearly indicates we should not be restricted to just specialist publications (such as publications not in English, which is being used to move articles around, because it is the "original language" source). -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That "it has to be" is the sort of problem I was referring to. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It all depends on the topic, how different usage is between specialized and non-specialized publications, precisely how specialized the publications are, etc. An article about some aspect of nuclear physics which is rarely covered in the popular media is quite different from an article about a well known historical event, for example. There is no substitute for editorial judgement; no "magic formula" which will avoid the need for discussion in problem cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JARGON does not cover it as it is a MOS guideline and is neither part of the AT policy of its naming conventions (guidelines). It is covered in the AT policy by "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize" (my emphasis). -- PBS (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean to be familiar with? To me it means to have read reliable sources about the topic written by experts. Reading a book by an expert doesn't make you a specialist but it makes you familiar with specialist usage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theres going to be examples where lay people with an interest will not recognise article titles, purely because a topic has been drilled down far enough that no lay person could be expected to know about it. Another possibility is that a lay persons concept or idea of something could be at best ambiguous; or at worst completely incorrect. As has been said by many here, these policies, especially common name, arent catchall rules, they are tools. Apply common sense and weigh up article names using any and all criteria available; including, but not limited to common name. -- Nbound (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty amazing how far PBS can twist a conversation and mention it for what it's not! Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, our Mitterrand example intentionally says nothing about the ASCII vs Unicode issue... The example given is "François Mitterrand (not: François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand)"... it is an example of where a person's first and last names are commonly used, but the full name (with middle names included) is not. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, no it doesn't, but as I said it was added partly to prevent exactly this kind of misunderstanding. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the discussion... you may have had that intent in mind, but I am not sure the rest of us had the same intent. (I know I didn't). Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was clear you didn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the two people who were primarily involved in adding the Mitterand example were/are not in agreement as to its intent... is there any wonder that that others disagree as to its intent? Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the recommendation that it be based on usage by Reliable Sources (which can include popular sources such as newspapers). To base it on general lay usage (however measured - Google hits, ngrams, polls, etc.) rather than Reliable Sources would degrade the encyclopedia. You would wind up with articles titled "Princess Di" and "A-Rod". You might as well base the encyclopedia on a Family Feud model, where the winning answer was based on "Survey says...." even if it was factually incorrect. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sometimes a common term refers to a specific condition (common cold equals viral rhinopharyngitis) and when it does we should use the common term. Sometimes the common term equals many condition (heart attack could mean either cardiac arrest or myocardial infarction, different condition need different articles). We need to use common sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While absolutely agreeing that we need to use common sense (which, as per the cliché, is not always common), we also need to keep remembering that WP:COMMONNAME is just an expansion of one of the five criteria used in deciding on an article title. "Precision" applies in the frequent cases where a single common term corresponds to more than one article topic. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change The current ambiguous policy is better than any alternative proposed. I agree that the current policy causes problems. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for being a bit late to this party! With respect to the exact way in which you phrased your question, I think that in the unlikely event the name used in reliable lay sources is hopelessly in conflict with the name used in reliable expert sources, I do indeed think that the lay sources should triumph. The reason why is pretty well stated in this this essay that another editor wrote perhaps a little to stridently on perhaps a slightly different topic. Basically, wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, not a specialist source for experts, so why should we follow the generalists when there's a conflict. For instance, as the person said above, and assuming these two things are the same, the article should be named orangutan and not pongo even if biologists exclusively use pongo in their literature. Our readers aren't likely to be expert biologists. (I don't know anything about orangutans or pongos (?) so I'm sorry if this is a terrible example.) Nor should we be running around using super-obscure medical and legal names when more recognizable alternatives will do. I am not sure given the way this discussion is phrased that you adequately considered the possibility of reliable non-expert sources. With regard to the latter question, I'm not familiar enough with COMMONNAME disputes to know whether it needs to be clarified. Sorry. AgnosticAphid talk 06:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clarification as suggested by User:Maunus. Wikipedia should reflect the recent expert knowledge, not layman names. I think that follows from what sources are considered reliable. --Space simian (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC). As an example: alcohol should refer to the article about alcohols and not ethanol; i.e. it should reflect usage by reliable expert (chemist) sources. (And regarding orangutans, I suspect experts refer to them as orangutans for the most part as well.) --Space simian (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“Conciseness” wording

Four months ago, on 7 April, User:Finell edited the naming criteria, including the following change:

from to
  • Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long.
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

As best I can tell, this wording has been stable through the four months since then. Hours ago, someone replaced part of the new text with the old, so it read (with the changes underlined):

  • Conciseness – The title is concise, not overly long, but long enough to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

Another editor reverted that change, a third editor reverted the revert, and then there were two subsequent reverts citing WP:BRD…

In the interest of sanity, I’ve reverted it to the wording that’s been stable for the last four months, and I’m opening this discussion about changing it from that. Personally, I prefer Finell’s version over the most recent change. It’s more concise, for one thing. —Frungi (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "to" text above ignores the definition of the word "concise", which does not mean "as short as possible". A concise title is both short and comprehensive; it is brief yet still conveys useful information. Some editors prefer to see the shortest possible title as the most concise title, which just isn't what the word means. Omnedon (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's worth talking about. When I boldly made today's change, it was to undo what may have been an inadvertant change of emphasis. In this edit of last April by User:Finell, with edit summary Recast characteristics as singular in active voice, use terminology consistent with rest of page, the wording was changed as indicated above. So I fixed the old concept to a singular version, incorporating Finell's extra info. What I left out, which is what User:Born2cycle is bothered about, was "no longer than necessary". He always seeks rules that push editors into corners of zero freedom, to make the titling process more algorithmic. He has done this to precision, and now he is trying to do the same for conciseness. It is not necessary to be that restrictive. Editors can consider what "not overly long" means, as we had in there for years. Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to both: “concise (adjective): giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.” To me, “no longer than necessary to …” matches this definition better than “not overly long, but long enough to …”. And with that, I think that’s about all I have to say on the matter; I have no opinion re its restrictiveness. —Frungi (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that "no longer than necessary" is a novel change that snuck in under a misleading edit summary. The previous concept goes way back; in 2009 it was simply "Concise – Good article titles are short; this makes editing, typing, and searching for articles easier." It morphed around over the years, but never before "as concise as possible", which is too restrictive. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we do end up going with your version, might I suggest tweaking the grammar? “The title is concise: not overly long, but …,” since the text following “concise” seems to be clarifying what is meant by the word. —Frungi (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my comma splice was not ideal. But you get the point. I'm flexible. Perhaps this: Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conciseness – The title is not overly long, but long enough to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
Definitely better, less redundant, but I honestly have no preference between this and “no longer than necessary”. —Frungi (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which version are you referring to as "the original"? And is tautological good, or bad, in saying what "concise" means? Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of having "concise" on this list of preferred attributes at all must be that if two possible article titles are equal in terms of other aspects, then the shorter title is better. For example, New York City and New York, New York probably fare equally well as natural, recognizable common names for the city, and are equally precise. However, the article is at the shorter title, New York City, because nothing longer is required to fully identify the subject. In any case, I think that we should have some examples like this showing that, where all else is equal between two possible titles, conciseness is a tiebreaker favoring the shorter title. bd2412 T 12:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessarily the case; "concise" doesn't equate to "shortest". Omnedon (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that to a degree - after all, editors would just as easily recognize Lord of the Rings as opposed to The Lord of the Rings, but we use the full title, and we don't substitute "&" for "and" in titles even though it would make them shorter. On the other hand, we don't use titles like The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, even though that would be accurate and perhaps more informative, because the additional information is unnecessary to get the reader to the article. I like the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of "concise" for this purpose: "marked by brevity of expression or statement: free from all elaboration and superfluous detail". Frankly, I think it is better than our own Wiktionary entry: "brief, yet including all important information". Nevertheless, I think that if we are going to say that titles should be "concise" at all, we should have some explanation, including some examples, expanding on what conciseness means in terms of picking the best title. Once we have that explanation, we can adjust the short version as needed (if needed at all) to better match the broader explanation. bd2412 T 14:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are others: from oxforddictionaries.com, "giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive". from dictionary.com, "expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse". From thefreedictionary.com "expressing much in few words; brief and to the point". The overriding theme here is the idea of balancing brevity with comprehensiveness. An example came up earlier this year regarding naming conventions for geographic names; it involved the city of McLouth, Kansas. The title "McLouth" would, of course, be shorter; but "McLouth, Kansas" is both longer (though not very long) and more concise. Omnedon (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Let's write it that way and put it in a section on this policy page. To paraphrase what you have written, The overriding theme of conciseness is the balancing of brevity with comprehensiveness. An example arising from the naming conventions for geographic names is the city of McLouth, Kansas. The title "McLouth" would, of course, be shorter; but "McLouth, Kansas" is both longer (though not very long) and more concise. I still think, however, that my examples of choosing New York City over New York, New York, and The Lord of the Rings over The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, are also valid examples of conciseness, and that there is something to be said for choosing the shortest title from a set of equally common and equally informative options. bd2412 T 16:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. If "McLouth, Kansas" is more concise than McLouth, then "San Francisco, California" is more "concise" than "San Francisco". Is that your opinion?

I don't agree that "the overriding theme of conciseness is the balancing of brevity with comprehensiveness". Comprehensiveness is not a criterion at all. --B2C 16:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To put it concisely: “Concise” does not mean short. It means short and informative. —Frungi (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Omnedon (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C, it's the overriding theme in the definition of concise.
BD2412, I agree that if there are multiple options that are equally informative, then in general shorter is better. It's just that in some cases, the shortest possible title is not very informative at all. I entirely agree with your LOTR example; adding "by J.R.R. Tolkien" begins to move away from conciseness. Omnedon (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C, I agree with Omnedon that "McLouth, Kansas" is a more concise title because even though it is the primary topic of "McLouth" (as evidenced by "McLouth" redirecting there), it is still a small and obscure place for which the average reader would have no frame of reference at all without "Kansas" being included in the title. Therefore, McLouth, Kansas is the shortest title to give the reader a comprehensive sense of what an article with that title will be about. Most of the tens of thousands of small towns in the world, even if they are unique names, require such a geographic indicator. Most of the handful of "world cities" (San Francisco, Paris, Hong Kong, Nairobi) do not, because the average reader already has a sense of where they are from hearing that much of the name alone. New York City stands outside of this paradigm only because the primary topic of the term, New York, is the state that encompasses the city, but "New York City" is still identification enough without saying New York, New York (or even New York City, New York). bd2412 T 17:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
bd2412, I agree with what you've said. To take a higher-level view of article titles, there are broad categories of articles to which special considerations may apply -- such as populated places, among others. For that reason I disagree with the idea of stating in policy that the shortest name is always best or most preferable, or that the shortest name is always the most concise. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it is not, and we need some flexibility. There may be an argument that says, "Then why not 'McLouth, Kansas, USA', or 'McLouth, a city in the state of Kansas in the United States'?" As you rightly said, "McLouth, Kansas" is the shortest title that conveys something about the subject of the article. It strikes the balance that is called for by the goal of conciseness. One can go too far either way. Omnedon (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with BD2412 and Omnedon. Conciseness does not equate to brevity. I'm not sure New York City is a particularly good example of conciseness though. I would rate it a wash on conciseness or perhaps a slight edge to NYC. I think NYC is preferable more so on naturalness and common usage than on conciseness in that "NY, NY" is really only commonly used in a) postal-form references, b) presentations in which NY, NY is used to be consistent with other cities, and c) some occasional pop culture references alluding to the song popularized by Sinatra. older ≠ wiser 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think those involved in this discussion would benefit from considering some of the points previously raised about this issue. The (short) names of legislation is an interesting area to discuss because the names are already unique within a jurisdiction, so the only reason to add to them is for disambiguation unless one considers the short names given to legislation are too short (this is discussed in detail in the archive section Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 33#Article specificity) -- PBS (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation continued in the next archive see Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 34#hopelessly vague title and the next Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 34#Parenthetical disambiguators used for context -- PBS (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the linked sections, and seem to disagree generally with you preferences, and strongly disagree with rationales offered by some who agree with you (you yourself provide few words of rationalisation). I find I agree with basically every word offered by Tony.
Arguments against helpful titles include "Bottomless quagmires of dispute", "Slippery slopes" and other logical fallacies. Is there a history of reader-helpful titles causing readership problems? Policy shouldn't be written to serve editors over readers.
If most readers cannot reasonably make an educated guess as to the subject of an article from its title, then it needs more information in the title.
Title bloat? Is there evidence? What does the real world do? I think I read in some archive a driving reason for super incision being that it is easier to type short titles. Well, that's an editor concern, not a reader concern, and should be dismissed as such. Superconcise titles make great redirects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that to a degree articles are titled for people who already know enough about the topic to be looking for it. From B2C's list below, for example, I've never heard of Tuulepealne maa, and because I've never heard of it, I would have no reason to search for it. A qualifier like (TV series) or (Estonia) or (Estonian TV series) would not be useful because for me to go looking for that title at all, I would basically have to know what it was already (although, yes, all of those titles could be made into redirects, which would not hurt anything, and theoretically might possibly help someone, sometime). We might say, then, that the best title is the most succinct title to completely identify the topic as it is likely to be known to the average person searching for that topic. bd2412 T 00:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One way to look at this is, what is wrong with a clear, accurate and precise title? Especially one that is unambiguous and is likely to not need moving in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, you say: "If most readers cannot reasonably make an educated guess as to the subject of an article from its title, then it needs more information in the title." If we apply that to the list below of random titles, 9 out of 10 "needs more information in the title", since most cannot make an educated guess as to the subject of the respective article from those titles. Even if you exclude the four that are apparently about people (if "about a person" is a close enough guess about the subject of the article), we're still talking about a majority. Not only that, but for most of these there is no obvious "more informative" title, so we can expect endless debate about each. And, apply that to 50-95% of all of our titles, depending on how you define a good enough educated guess. No matter how you slice it; totally unworkable. Titles were NEVER meant to convey the subject of an article to someone who is unfamiliar with that title/subject. This scope limit has always been made clear at recognizability. --B2C 03:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BD, I think this is pretty good: " the best title is the most succinct title to completely identify the topic as it is likely to be known to the average person searching for that topic.", though I would strike "completely".

Vegas, what is wrong with "a clear, accurate and precise title" is that Tuulepealne maa, for example, may be "clear" to some but is not to most. So how do we decide what is "clear"? --B2C 03:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A random sampling

Okay, let's dispense with the strawmen arguments: Nobody is saying that conciseness means shorter is always better. We all agree Yogurt is better than Yogur, even though Yogur is shorter.

Now here is something we all agree about: Concise means short and informative. But informative about what, exactly? Let's look at ten actual random titles to get an idea of what "informative" might mean with respect to WP titles:

Whenever I grab a random sampling of our titles, it's quite clear that with respect to topics that have names, we try to make our titles "informative" in only one respect: to inform the reader what the name of the topic is. We don't try to inform our readers, in the article title, that Tuulepealne maa is an Estonian TV series, that Kevin Chapman is an actor, or that Honey and Dust is a book.

Now, let's look again at the cherry-picked (not random) example of McLouth, Kansas. It (and other US cities) is an aberration/exception compared to regular practice. We don't try to inform our readers, via the article title, that Mount Shadow is a small peak in New Zealand. Why is there a need to inform our readers, in its title, that the town named McClouth is in Kansas?

Right now it's generally clear that, with a few exceptions (most notably US cities), when a topic has a name that does not require disambiguation, we use that name as the article's concise title, and such a title is as informative as it needs to be. If we wish to make our titles more informative, so that they become recognizable to even people who are not familiar with their respective topics, that opens up an enormous can of worms. Suddenly at least nine of the ten titles in the random list above, currently stable, become open to change.

Putting aside a few exceptions like US cities, there is very little precedent in policy or especially in practice for making our titles "comprehensive" or "informative" (beyond informing readers what the name of the topic is), except when disambiguation or a contrived/descriptive title is necessary. We should not state or imply otherwise. --B2C 20:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No strawman arguments were presented, and my single example was not cherry-picked; rather, it was an example that has been discussed before. And yes, you have suggested that this interpretation of "concise" was wrong, and you have tended to equate "concise" with "short", insisting that Wikipedia has its own definition of "concise" (which, if true, should not be true). A concise title is not always the shortest possible title, and an example has been given, representative of tens of thousands of similar articles. I am not suggesting that titles be comprehensive; that the definition of the word "concise" can include the word "comprehensive" doesn't mean that the latter term suddenly becomes a criterion of its own. But titles certainly should be informative to at least a minimal degree. What is this article about? Almost no one looking at the title "McLouth" would assume it was a city; it might be any number of things. Add the state and it is immediately much more clear to a large number of readers. No more is needed; but no less is sufficient. In other areas of Wikipedia, such as articles about people, the situation is different. Hence the need for flexibility in titling. Omnedon (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking just at that group, Tuulepealne maa and Honey and Dust are titles of works, and are unambiguous; Kevin Chapman, Priyanka Vadra, Bert Marshall, and Marcus Griffin are human names, with the first and third being primary topics for ambiguous names; China Banking Regulatory Commission is self-explanatory; * Mount Shadow and Massingir District are obvious place names for a mountain and a district. Without a state identifier, McLouth is not obviously a place name rather than a surname (it is apparently named for an "A. McLouth", who once owned the land). The only one of these that gives me pause is Siribala, which could helpfully be renamed Siribala, Mali. bd2412 T 20:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should value "helpful to our readers" above "need to inform our readers". "Need" is very extreme a requirement, and its thrown around with little definition. Titles are important because they are the main information available before loading a page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • BD, yes, Tuulepealne maa and Honey and Dust are titles of works, but you can't know that from looking at the titles. For example, Honey and Dust could be a band name, or the name of a notable boat. We are not informed from the title about what it is, nor should we be. More to the point, conciseness should not imply that these titles need to have additional information in them in order to be "informative".

      Yes, Kevin Chapman, Priyanka Vadra, Bert Marshall, and Marcus Griffin are all obviously human names, but that's by happenstance. Is Astrid Lampe a human, a place, title of a work, or what? Do you know without looking? I, for one, had never heard of any these people. If the article title is to inform readers that McLouth is a city in Kansas, shouldn't article titles also inform readers that Chapman is an actor, Vadra a pol, Marshall a hockey player, Griffin an American football player and Lampe a poet? I don't understand how you're defining "informative"... informative about what, exactly?

      Moving on to China Banking Regulatory Commission - yes, self-explanatory. It's the only informative one in the list, by my reckoning.

      Sure,Mount Shadow is probably a mountain, but not for sure! Consider Mount of Olives, Temple Mount, Anson Mount, Mount Florida and Mount Isa? Can you tell which of these are mountains, just from the titles? Similarly, Massingir District is probably a place name, but we are not informed where it is from the title.

      Now, consider the countless cities all over the world that are not obviously cities from the titles of their articles, like Ceri, Haringsee and Casape. Why is it so important to make an exception out of US cities like McLouth? But I don't really want to get into debating the merits of adding state names to US city names here - my point is that practice is an exception; it is not a standard practice for article titles, not even for city article titles, and we should not state or imply otherwise. The reason we specify state in the titles of US cities is not to be informative, but because McLouth, Kansas can be seen as the full name of that place.

      You want to move Siribala to Siribala, Mali? Then why not Ceri → Ceri, Lazio, Haringsee → Haringsee, Gänserndorf and Casape → Casape, Latium? There is no consensus for such moves in the community, and we have no basis to say anything in policy that says or implies otherwise.

      To reword conciseness in a way that says, suggests or implies that WP titles are supposed to be informative (or, God forbid, comprehensive), opens the door for proposing the moves of the majority of our articles. Maybe that's exactly what some people want, but I don't see consensus for that. --B2C 23:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • SmokeyJoe, what does "helpful to our readers" mean in terms of how it affects our title choices? Look at my random list. Nine out of ten could easily be seen as currently unhelpful. If that's a representative sample, we're talking about 90% of our titles. Are you in favor of changing almost all our titles in order to make them more "helpful to our readers"? Not to mention that opening them for rename means opening the door for deciding on what exactly the "helpful" title should be. --B2C 23:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most titles are fine. Many could be more helpful, and changing them is best done on a case by case basis on individual merits. Obscure small towns would be helpfully disambiguated by location, even if their indigenous name is technically unambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds do you say that "most titles are fine"? I mean, I agree, but I also don't think we should be changing titles in order to make them "more helpful". If I believed we should be changing titles in order to make them "more helpful", then I would have to say that most titles are not fine.

And what do you mean by a "case by case basis on individual merits"? What are the "individual merits" of McLouth that justify putting it at McLouth, Kansas that do not exist for, say, the 500 or so Cities and towns in Lower Austria that do not require disambiguation? Or are you favoring that they all be moved? --B2C 00:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I read articles for pleasure or work, I rarely encounter obviously unhelpful titles, queen consorts being a major exception. The Random article link rarely gives me an obviously unhelpful title. Policy should freely allow for helpfully amending by location the titles towns of lower Austria, but only if editors genuinely interested in the towns do the renaming. I do not support WP:at title experts performing mass bot-like edits/moves as they may be unaware of a particular ancient town having great sensitivity about being labelled Austrian. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USPLACE has us use state names in almost all US place names for reasons other than conciseness, but that aside: The way I see it, “McLouth” sounds like a surname. It sounds like something that is not the subject of its article, so the qualifier is warranted. “Tuulepealne maa” and “Honey and Dust” could be anything and don’t sound like anything in particular, so there’s no conflict with expectation; that is, one wouldn’t likely search for those names expecting to find something else. —Frungi (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, I cannot understand what you're saying because you keep using terms like fine, helpful and obviously unhelpful without defining what that means to you in a way that I would know how they would apply to various titles. I know the dictionary definitions, of course, but I don't know why you would think (if you do) that McLouth is unhelpful (or even "obviously unhelpful"), but Simuna and Salorno, are, perhaps, among the "most titles" which are "fine". What criteria do you use to decide if a given title is "fine", "helpful", "unhelpful" or "obviously unhelpful"? In the random list, how would you classify each in these terms, and why?
You, or any random person here, is likely in a very poor position to decide what is the best title for a topic, with regards to helpfulness. Helpfulness is a quality with meaning to people associated with or interest in the topic. "Fine", as I used it, means it seems OK to me, I have no particular problem, however I am not expressing a deeply considered opinion. "McLouth" is unhelpful because it looks like a name, it looks like it is probably an article on a surname, or a clan. "Simuna" and "Salorno" seem fine to me, and may or may not be fine to people interested in these subjects. "Salorno", I would probably prefer to see at "Salorno, Italy" but I would certainly not presume to boldly do it without input from people interested in the topic. On your ten random titles, I consider them: (1) fine, specific and precise and very unlikely to be mistaken for something else; (2) fine, expecting to find a biography; (3) fine, probably, accepting that the title case indicates that this is a creative work and not a bee keeping subject; (4) fine, looks like an eastern name, expecting a biography; (5) fine, wondering whether it should be Chinese instead of China; (6) fine; a name, expecting a biography; (7) fine, sounds like a mountain, not so concerned about mountains needing more information like obscure towns, could be expanded or merged to Admiralty Mountains; (8) fine, a name, expecting a biography; (9) maybe fine, I might prefer to see it at Siribala, Mali; (10) name is fine for now, article needs expansion or merging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frungi, maybe I missed it before, but you seem to be introducing a new criterion. That is, you seem to be saying that if a title "sounds like something that is not the subject of its article", it shouldn't have that title. And you want to incorporate this new criterion into conciseness? Is that right? How are we supposed to decide if a given name sounds like a certain type of thing? I mean, does Plaus sound like a surname? --B2C 02:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t say it even had anything to do with conciseness (rather, it’s naturalness); it’s simply another consideration, of which conciseness is but one. You asked specifically about that title, and I gave rationale for it off the top of my head. Titles aren’t, and can’t be, decided on just one of the WP:CRITERIA while ignoring the rest. —Frungi (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This section is about the wording of conciseness, and, therefore, what it means and how that applies to titles. In this subsection I'm asking about how the "informative" aspect of "conciseness" applies to the list of 10 random titles. In particular, if McLouth, Kansas is preferred over McLouth because the latter is more "informative", why doesn't the concisness "informative" criterion apply to each of the obscure names in the list? --B2C 03:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my confusion; I thought you were suggesting that we consider conciseness in a vacuum in evaluating these titles. Personally, I agree with both the current wording and Dick’s “The title is not overly long, but long enough [or: informative enough; comprehensive enough] to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.” To my eye, many of the selected titles are sufficiently informative to not be confused for other possible subjects. They don’t need further detail because they already meet recognizability in that “someone familiar with … the subject[s] will recognize” them (I think; I’m not actually familiar with any of them), and they’re not ambiguous. McLouth, on the other hand—even if it weren’t in a US state—is also clearly a surname, so it needs that additional detail to “distinguish it from other subjects”. Clear? —Frungi (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's just disambiguation. Since there are other uses of "McLouth" on WP, the process applies to "McLouth". So McLouth is not a good example for concision after all. --B2C 21:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there weren’t other uses on Wikipedia, there would still be other possible uses, as well as the natural inclination that a term like that is a surname. Adding the state is a concise way to clarify that. Also see SmokeyJoe’s recent comment above re helpfulness. And I don’t know if it’s just the way I’m reading your comments, and I apologize if that’s the case, but it still seems to me that you’re looking at conciseness exclusively from all other considerations rather than in concert with them. —Frungi (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there weren't other uses on WP, then the WP process of disambiguation would not apply, other possible uses notwithstanding. US city names are an exception - for the vast majority of our articles we use the concise commonly used name of the topic, and only make it more informative if necessary to disambiguate from other uses of that name on WP, without regard to other possible uses. We should not imply otherwise in our policy. --B2C 16:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording for a section on "conciseness"

I have made an effort to synthesize the discussion above, and would like to propose that we keep the wording for "conciseness" in the first section as is, and add the following section to the project page, after the section on preciseness:

The overriding theme of conciseness is the balancing of brevity with sufficient comprehensiveness to identify the topic as it is likely to be known to the average person actively searching for that topic. An ambiguously named topic will require a longer title to distinguish it from other, similarly named topics. This is the case even for terms that have a primary topic. For example:

  • NYC redirects to New York City, but even though NYC would be a much shorter title, it has a number of other meanings that are completely unrelated to the city. Therefore, NYC is inappropriate for use as an article title.
  • McLouth redirects to McLouth, Kansas. Even though the title "McLouth" would be shorter; but "McLouth, Kansas" is both longer (though not very long) and more concise because the average reader would be likely to read McLouth alone as a surname.
  • Eric Clapton is the only notable person having that name. Eric Patrick Clapton, Eric Clapton, CBE, and Eric Clapton (musician) are all titles containing more information than is necessary to identify the subject, and in fact are less likely to be the title searched for by the average reader.
  • Tuulepealne maa is an Estonian TV series, which a very small proportion of English-speaking people are likely to have heard of at all. Although Tuulepealne maa (TV series), Tuulepealne maa (Estonia), or even Tuulepealne maa (Estonian TV series) would contain more information, this additional information would be unhelpful to the person who would typically be searching for this title, because they would not be searching for it if they were not already aware of the show.

It is important to note that conciseness can not be considered in a vacuum. Very often, the name which people come to adopt as the common name of a thing will also be the most concise name, because the ease of using a shorter name contributes to its adoption as a common name. Furthermore, if the most concise name for a subject is also an ambiguous title, then a longer name will need to be chosen, or a disambiguator added, to avoid ambiguity.

Cheers! bd2412 T 21:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like some of the language above quite a bit; the introduction provides some good clarification, but I am opposed to one example. We have some local consensus for the naming of geographic locations that may vary the general rule and impose "internal disambiguation". I do not want to get into whether we should honor the local consensus, nor whether it is correct or not and the project page already states "Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria.... The point is that the general rule should not be changed and the principal we should be highlighting is stated in your introduction (and contradicted by the McLouth example as well as the Tuulepealne maa example): "...to the average person actively searching for that topic." Precisely. A person searching for McLouth already knows what it is. A person typing it into an article knows what it is also and will make the editorial decision of whether it needs a pipe or by context whether it's 100% clear ("the neighboring town, [[McLouth]]". Our readers will only come upon Mclouth because they are searching for it (so know what it is), or through an article (which will in almost all cases give context to what it is). What other possibilities are there, if any? We don't need to disambiguate titles "internally" unless they are descriptive titles, as opposed to named things and you can't get more precise than describing a topic by its actual name. Advising that we should in any way is a slippery slope. Most things in the word cannot be recognized from their names unless someone already knows what they are. Ask yourself what you would think Pink Floyd was if you had never heard of them. I would guess a type of sea sponge. The logic scheme behind having McLouth, Kansas is no different than Pink Floyd (band) and there's the soap for the slope.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, and I suppose that it is too much to try and shoehorn a justification for geographic naming conventions into conciseness, particularly where they may represent an exception to the rule. bd2412 T 22:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd actually prefer to remove the USPLACE example from the precision section as well "Bothell, Washington" for similar reasons. Dohn joe (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck it for now. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's avoid using "ambiguously" ambiguously. Do we mean "ambiguously" in the dictionary sense (conflicts with other uses uses on or off of WP), or in the WP sense (conflicts with other uses on WP)?
  • I continue to object to the use of "comprehensive" or "comprehensiveness" with respect to describing a goal of titles. A term, which is all titles usually are, are not comprehensive. Titles are just convenient ways to refer to topics. There is no balancing to brevity - brevity (and conciseness) encompasses sufficiency.

    I suggest we use shortness and accuracy instead. We use "New York City" rather than "NYC" because while NYC is shorter, "New York City" more accurately reflects the most commonly used name for that topic.

  • "Typical" is better than "average" in this context.
  • The sentence "This is the case even for terms that have a primary topic." is not true. E.g., Paris, Water, Houston, diamond, etc. etc.
  • So, putting it all together...

The overriding theme of conciseness is the balancing of shortness with sufficient accuracy to identify the topic as it is likely to be known to the typical person actively searching for that topic. A topic with a name shared with other uses on Wikipedia that is not the primary topic for that name requires a longer title to distinguish it from other uses. For example:...

--B2C 16:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me that makes it sound like the examples refer to instances where the term is not the primary topic. All of the examples are primary topics of the title, and other than NYC, are therefore the titles themselves. bd2412 T 17:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I guess I don't understand what exactly these particular examples are supposed to illustrate. NYC is not inappropriate as the title of that article because it has other uses; it's because "New York City" is the more commonly used name in reliable sources. Eric Clapton is the quintessential primary topic example. Tuulepealne maa is the quintessential "only topic" example. None of the examples support the contention that "An ambiguously named topic will require a longer title to distinguish it from other, similarly named topics for terms that have a primary topic." --B2C 17:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point of NYC is that although it is shorter, and the city is the primary topic of the term, it is too abbreviated to be the title. Note that New York City (disambiguation) exists, and that New York City itself is therefore not the only topic of that name. However, New York City is still more clearly about the city than NYC would be. As for Clapton and the Estonian TV series, they show that whether a name is famous or obscure, if it is the primary topic of the term, nothing else should be added or included. I would go so far as to say that if we were to title our Clapton article, Eric Patrick Clapton, the additional material would confuse readers rather than assisting them (although that is as much a common name matter as it is a conciseness matter). bd2412 T 17:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NYC is not "too abbreviated" to be the title. If that were the term most commonly used in reliable sources, it would be perfectly fine to use as the title. See IBM, AT&T, NBC, etc. If "NYC" were "too abbreviated" to be a title, then countless other examples, like these, would be too. We should not be suggesting that NYC is not the title of that article because it's "too abbreviated" because that's not the reason it's not the title. With respect to Eric Clapton and Tuulepealne maa, those two again are the most commonly used names to refer to their respective topics, for which each is either the primary or only use, respectively. Conciseness or preciseness has very little if anything to do with these particular title selections. --B2C 18:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, can you come up with a better example? A title that is better choice from between otherwise equal alternatives, precisely because it is more concise? My original example was New York City over New York, New York. bd2412 T 18:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New York City over New York, New York or San Francisco over San Francisco, California are good examples of conciseness. It's difficult to find such examples because conciseness only applies when there are two potential titles both of which are used about just as commonly in reliable sources. In other words, in practice conciseness is only used as a tie breaker criterion, when the recognizability and naturalness don't indicate one (except for US cities which are the primary or only uses of their short names and are not on the AP list for which consistency is used instead of conciseness for the tie breaker). --B2C 18:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C, "conciseness" is certainly not only used as a tiebreaker. It is one of five criteria to be considered when titling. Omnedon (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NYC is not the name of New York City. IBM, on the other hand, is arguably a name of the company which is also known by a longer name, International Business Machines. So no, NYC should not be the title of the article on New York City. It is not concise. Omnedon (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In practice? I can't recall a single case where conciseness was a significant criterion and it was not between two potential titles of which neither was clearly favored by naturalness/recognizability (per usage in reliable sources). Can you? Where? --B2C 19:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be talking about moves. I am talking about titling. New articles are created all the time, and conciseness is one of the five criteria to be considered when deciding upon a title. It matters. Omnedon (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about both. Can you provide any examples of article titles in which the title would likely be different if not for conciseness, and it's not a title where naturalness and recognizability (per usage in RS) don't clearly prefer that title over others?

My point is this: when someone is picking a title, if naturalness and recognizability clearly indicate one particular title, and there is no ambiguity issue with other uses of that name on WP, that title will be used without regard to conciseness. In practice, conciseness only matters in selecting titles when naturalness and recognizability do not clearly indicate one particular title, or the disambiguation process is at play.

This is merely an observation. If I'm not seeing something, please let me know. --B2C 19:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note from someone who was active when we first outlined the five criteria... we were not thinking of conciseness in as nit-picky detail as choosing between New York City and New York, New York (we would have said those are essentially equally concise). We were thinking of a situation like: Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA)... while not short, we chose that title because it was a hell of a lot more concise than the full (official) name of the organization... which is: [[The Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World) of the Inspectors General Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America]]. I hope you would agree that the full "offical" name would be ridiculously long if used as an article title. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Well that is definitely a contrast in lengths, and would probably make an excellent example. See also When the Pawn.... I wonder, though, why not just title it the even shorter Mother Supreme Council of the World, which is apparently what people call it, and which redirects to it? Ambiguity concerns? bd2412 T 19:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember there were two reasons why we didn't go with "Mother Supreme Coucil of the World"... one was ambiguity (it helps to say what organization one is talking about in the title)... the other was POV (the Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Northern Jurisdiction, USA) disputes the claim of primacy made by the Southern Jurisdiction... so we chose to avoid that issue in the title.) Blueboar (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, usage in reliable sources (naturalness/recognizability) indicates the shorter one anyway. --B2C 19:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there’s no conflict between the criteria here. Isn’t that a good thing? —Frungi (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of conflict between the criteria is a good thing, yes, but then it's not an example of a title that is what it is due to conciseness. --B2C 03:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that if we choose a given title based solely on a single consideration (such as conciseness) that’s mutually exclusive with anything else, something has gone wrong. Why can’t it be an example of conciseness among other things? Or are you arguing for the removal of that criterion? —Frungi (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to generate an explanation of what, exactly, conciseness means in terms of article title policy - beyond the blurb in the list of five things. That is why I would like to include a section teasing out exactly the circumstances where this rule would come into play in determining an article title. bd2412 T 04:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – keeping the undiscussed April change with the absolutist wording "no longer than necessary" is not OK. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, a term I used in discussing the definition of the word "concise" has made its way into the discussion in another way. I used "overriding theme" to describe the concept of balancing brevity with comprehensiveness, in that definition. In other words, that's the gist of "concise". In terms of the way conciseness is applied to article titling, I entirely disagree with using it to say anything that suggests the title should be as short as possible. I also disagree with excluding geographic name examples; the title "McLouth, Kansas" is a very good example of the balance we need. Omnedon (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“Conciseness” list wording

Since the original topic seems to have sputtered out without much of a consensus, I have a pair of questions for everyone:

  1. Does anyone other than User:Dicklyon have any objections to the wording “no longer than necessary to …”?
  2. Does anyone other than User:Born2cycle have any objections to the wording “not overly long, but long enough to …”?

—Frungi (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this discussion, but have not posted on it until now as I did not feel I had anything to add that had not already been said. However, having been asked for an opinion now. to answer your two questions: 1. no 2. yes. The wording “not overly long, but long enough to …” is clumsy and the objections raised to “no longer than necessary to …” are frankly ridiculous. Just my 2c. - Nick Thorne talk 05:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attached to the awkward "not overly long" wording, but that's what we lived with for a while before the more absolutist "not longer than necessary" wording came in in April. We could go back to something more like what we had a few years ago: "Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point." Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, the "no longer than necessary" phrasing simply doesn't fit with the definition of the word "concise". Omnedon (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is exactly what concise means. - Nick Thorne talk 02:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, "short and informative" does not equate to "no longer than necessary". Omnedon (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, the wording is actually "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". You are cherry picking only part of what is being said in order to make it seem to say something it does not. Taken properly in context the current wording equates to conciseness, properly amplified for clarity, - Nick Thorne talk 23:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, I agree that we should not have our own redefinition of the word here. With that in mind, we could use something like this: "Concise - the title is both short and informative." Omnedon (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "Concise - the title is not substantially longer than needed to identify the subject". I propose this since the "informative" aspect of the title is identifying the subject, and not, for example, providing additional biographical information. Eric Clapton (born 1945) is clearly more informative, but the date is not needed to identify the subject. bd2412 T 13:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The combination of "short" and "informative" would not tend to lead to the title you suggest, especially when combined with the other four titling criteria. Omnedon (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get hung up on the dictionary meaning of "concise" or "conciseness" and focus on the concept which actually is and has been the relevant criterion used to select titles for WP articles. At least partially because of this criterion, we prefer Ernstbrunn over Ernstbrunn, Austria, San Francisco over San Francisco, California, Sega Genesis over Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, Nikau over Nikau tree, David Owen over David Owen, Baron Owen and Napoleon over Napoleon I. When push comes to shove, what's going on here is this: if two titles are otherwise equally well supported by the other criteria, and both are available, we prefer the shorter one. Maybe conciseness is not the right word, but that's what this criterion is really about. Therefore, that's what the policy should say. --B2C 20:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the definition matters, as much as you wish to sweep it aside. And you should not say "we prefer" because not everyone agrees with you on these examples. One of those examples is spurious, because San Francisco does not include the state due to a completely separate issue. Further, I would not agree with your statement; sometimes the shorter title is preferable, but not necessarily. So no, that is not what this criterion is really about. Omnedon (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You want to live in a black and white world. And your direction is to get changes that can be enforced as black or white. The problem with this is that we live in a grey world and the negative consequences of black and white choices are ones we can not live with, especially when someone is willing to draw a line in the sand and allow now variations. Most of us can not live with that. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although that was not directed to me, I am interested in having a section offering expanded discussion of this topic precisely so I can know how to weigh those shades of grey. bd2412 T 03:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP title space is not "the world". We have control in WP title space that is incomparable to our lack of control in "the world". "The world" is way over on the gray end of the gray-to-black-and-white spectrum, but where WP title space falls on that spectrum is almost entirely dependent on how we define the relevant polices and guidelines. Can we get it all the way over to the extreme where there never is any debate about any title? Of course not. But can we move it closer to the black-and-white end by tightening up some of the language in our policies and guideline, in order to greatly reduce how much debate we have about titles? Absolutely. But those who want to have the grounds to argue for any title they happen to prefer will of course favor keeping the relevant rules regarding WP title space closer to the gray end of the spectrum. --B2C 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New conciseness proposal

At this point the language of the page still reads:

  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

This has been relatively stable language now for five months, so it presumably reflects the wishes of the community, although some comments in this discussion suggest that the original intent of listing "Conciseness" as a factor was to favor abbreviated forms over certain title of ridiculous length (e.g. the full name of the Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA)). That is probably the best example to reference here, since it has a "common name", Mother Supreme Council of the World, which presents ambiguity and has POV problems. I therefore propose that we keep the wording for "conciseness" in the first section as is, and add the following section to the project page, after the section on preciseness:

Conciseness

The overriding theme of conciseness is the balancing of brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic in a way that will be recognizable to the average person actively searching for that topic.

For example, the full "official" name of the Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA) is The Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World) of the Inspectors General Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America. This title is even longer than Wikipedia's 255-character limit for page titles. Although the common name of the organization is Mother Supreme Council of the World, this title is both ambiguous and controversial, as other "Supreme Councils" dispute the primacy claimed by this organization. The resulting title, Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA), is the most concise title to fully convey the identity of the organization described in the article.

Cheers! bd2412 T 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsors and "naming rights"

It is common, particularly for sports stadiums and similar buildings, for sponsors to have temporary naming rights to a building. This means the official name for a building may change frequently. Sometimes the common name reflects these changes, and sometimes it doesn't. Generally the Wikipedia convention is to stick to the more generic name for the article, even if the sponsored official name becomes fairly common. However that practice isn't currently reflected in this policy, or as a separate written convention. Should it be?

Examples include:

Counterexamples include:

  • Emirates Stadium - generic name is "Ashburton Grove (Stadium)" but it was named the Emirates before building was completed and has never had an alternative official name

WaggersTALK 08:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that it is accurate to say there is "Wikipedia convention" to stick to the old name... It really is more a question of WP:COMMONNAME (do sources start using the new "sponsor" name, or do they reject it and continue to use the old name).
I note that all your examples are UK based. It may be that UK sources are more resistant to change than American sources ... We change article titles on US stadiums and ball parks quite frequelntly... examples are: Enron Field to Minute Maid Park... Pacific Bell Park to SBC Park to AT&T Park... Jacobs Field to Progressive Field... etc. All were justified because the new name quickly became the WP:COMMONNAME used in sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
International organisations that take over a city or a country for a jamboree throw up some interesting naming problems. For example they will inst that a venue does not include a commercial name that has not paid them to use the name, so the Aviva Stadium (which IMHO ought to be called by its old stadium name Landsdown Road) was called the "Dublin Arena" for the 2011 UEFA Europa League Final, and more recently The O2 Arena was called the "North Greenwich Arena" for the 2012 Summer Olympics.
As an example consider when the Welsh Rugby Union renamed Cardiff Arms Park the National Stadium everyone including commentators in reliable sources ignored them and continued to call it the Arms Park. But when the old stadium was knocked down and a new one was built the WRU christened it the Millennium Stadium and that name stuck. So I think COMMONNAME covers this issue of naming stadiums and there is no need for a specific paragraph, although I think it might be a good idea to add "third party" before "reliable sources" in the phrase "then more weight should be given to the name used in third party reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change" to cover purely commercial changes of name, (this is something which I had already considered proposing over the discussion above about #Article titles for transgender people. -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is the province of COMMONNAME, with the Etihad forming part of the borderline (as that name has easily entered into the footballing lexicon, but not fully). Sceptre (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A similar problem has come up with shopping centres. Various companies will buy out the complexes and slap a uniform corporate branding upon them. However locals frequently carry on using the existing name, which is often restored after the next buyout, but the web searches can be dominated by chains using the new name in postal addresses on their branch list rather than by the usage in the local press and various local organisations. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation for another discussion: Article titles for transgender people

Hello everyone -- if you look a few sections above you will see that I previously proposed a clarification of the policy on article titles for transgender people. That discussion took place in the midst of a heated debate over what to call Private Manning (I use a neutral term here to avoid picking sides). That discussion was somewhat disorderly, a situation I would like to avoid for the next discussion. Following advice from the administrator (BD2412) who closed the Manning move request, I would like to re-open discussion in due time.

Before we begin another formal discussion, I would like for us to first lay out the terms of the discussion. I would like feedback on the following points (feel free to discuss others I hadn't considered):

1. Scope of discussion: Should the discussion cover only article titles for transgender people, or article titles for the names of all people, or name changes of all entities in general? Should the discussion cover name changes or all articles in general?

2. Discussion points: What points should we discuss? Within each point, which precise options should be available for people to !vote for? Here is a list of suggested discussion points:

  • Avoid birth names: Should we amend WP:COMMONNAME to state that birth names are problematic in the case of name changes for transgender people?
More specifically, should we state that birth names "have problems" for the purpose of WP:COMMONNAME's "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others"? (generalized from Cam94509)
  • Name when notable: If the subject gains notability (widespread media coverage) only under one name, should that name continue to be used after a name change? (based on suggestion from Vegaswikian)
  • Only recent sources: Should we consider only post-announcement sources in the case of name changes?
More precisely, should the phrase "more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change" be changed to "one should consider only the name used in reliable sources published after the name change, and not consider those before the change"
  • Other considerations (not covered under WP:COMMONNAME) - consider more than reliable sources
  • Should we create a new section covering aspects separate from WP:COMMONNAME? (idea from 99.192.77.201)
  • Legal status: Should we consider the subject's legal name or legal / biological status? If so, how heavily should we weight such considerations? (FT2 mentioned this in previous discussion)
  • Subject's intentions: Should we consider the subject's intentions?
More precisely, should we change article titles only in the following situations: "if there is good evidence that the intention to change [publicly used? most commonly used?] name is a genuine and enduring one, and appears likely to be non-temporary." (FT2 mentioned this in previous discussion)
  • Subject's preferences: Should we consider the subject's preferences?
More precisely, should we add a statement to the policy explicitly clarifying that in cases of individuals announcing a name change, the individual him- or herself is the most reliable source and the final arbiter on the subject of the person's name." (generalized to all name changes from Dezastru's statement in the previous discussion)
  • Avoid offense: Should we avoid potentially offensive article titles?
More precisely, should we not use a given name if it reasonably possible for a group to be offended by that name, unless there is an overwhelmingly clear reason to use the potentially offensive name? (basic idea from Space simian)

3. Page layout: What should be the page layout of a discussion? Should we create a subpage? Should we create certain sub-sections, and if so, which ones?

I ask that we hammer out these procedural details before beginning a substantive policy discussion. This will ensure that we have an orderly discussion. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preparatory discussion

  • If you think this would result in an orderly discussion you are more of an optimist then I. One issue that you have not addressed is, if a person gains notability only under one name, should that name continue to be used after a name change? Changing names is common in marriage. So does the our precedent there offer any guidance for you? For performers, we seem to chose the name of the moment since some seem to change on a regular basis. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would very much like to see an option to vote for something that made it clear that, except in cases where it would be truly unreasonable, a trans persons preferred name would be preferred for titling Wikipedia articles about them over their birth name. I have no real strong feelings either way on the third one, and I think for the first one we should stick to discussing trans people, although discussing all name changes wouldn't be the end of the world. Cam94509 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least this should be restricted to people although probably even more than that. There are all manner of factors with non-human cases that need to be considered separately, in particular national varieties of English, what actually is "an English name" when the new declared name in English is taken from another language, the subtleties of official naming policies where approaches vary wildly, and the inevitable politicisation attached to these name changes. There are enough issues relating to people alone without getting into Australian rocks, Indian cities, British shopping centres and all the rest. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey. I'd like to clarify that I'm actually interested in discussing "Subject's prefrences", that is to say, whether the subject's PREFERENCES should be used. (Because that's what I think we should be using, if at all possible.) Names when notable is *not* what I'm interested in discussing. Cam94509 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cam, sorry about that. I got your comment confused with Vegaswikian's comment. I'll make the correction in my proposal. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Cam94509 (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion should deal only with transgender people who have changed their names. Name changes in those situations involve a unique set of issues that do not really apply to other kinds of name changes (such as people changing their names following marriage, or divorce; performers changing their names as a career move, or simply out of vanity; corporations changing their names to enhance their business prospects; or political entities such as cities or countries changing their names). Dezastru (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that name changes accompanying a religious conversion can present similar circumstances, and perhaps it could be said that all instances in which a person changes their name in a way that rejects their previous life and sets out on a new course could fall into this category. This differs from changing one's name because of marriage (which signifies embarking on a new life, but not necessarily a rejection of pre-marital life), or changing one's name on a whim, or for commercial purposes. However, I also would agree that our rules should provide for particular sensitivity to transgender name changes. bd2412 T 02:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope should be changing the titles of any article. Existing policy about article naming applies to all articles. It would be a mistake to decide to use different policies for different kinds of articles. I should note that so far as I have followed the Manning page title discussion (which is only a little), most of the discussion was not about what the criteria should be, but about whether the criteria was met. That is, most people agreed that the common name should be used, but disagreed about what the common name for Manning is. So discussion of just how the common name is determined seems to be more the specific issue than whether or not the title should be the common name. 99.192.68.167 (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
"So discussion of just how the common name is determined seems to be more the specific issue than whether or not the title should be the common name." That's correct. We all agree to use WP:COMMONNAME to a greater or lesser extent, but WP:COMMONNAME itself is somewhat vague in these situations.
"It would be a mistake to decide to use different policies for different kinds of articles." As you may or may not already be aware, the policy (WP:COMMONNAME) does carve out an exception for name changes. So in that sense, the policy already does not apply to all articles, but rather to a subset of them. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CaseyPenk, I see nowhere where the policy talks about name changes for people as separate from any other name changes. As such, there is only one policy for all types of articles, be they about people, places, things, events, or anything else. 99.192.68.167 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Yes, the name changes clause applies to any kind of article and not just people. My point is that the name change clause applies only to entities that change their names and not all articles. The subject of any article could in theory change its name, so yes, the name changes clause does apply to all articles in that sense, but in a practical sense only a minority of subjects will undergo name changes. It might be we're just debating semantics, in which case it would be fine to view it as applying to all articles or just a subset, as long as we agree on our interpretations of the name change clause. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like we agree, so I guess that means we must be right! Yes, it is only a minority of articles, but many of them will be non-people articles. Films (like Star Wars), sporting events (like the Nokia Brier), stadiums (like Joe Robbie Stadium), countries (like Myanmar), and types of objects (like tidal waves) can all change names. Only a small minority will change names, but the same is true for people. 99.192.68.167 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
  • (ec) Addendum to my previous comment: As for the content of the discussion, none of legal status, subject's intentions, or subject's preferences should be part of the discussion since none of them have anything to do with determining what a person's common name is. 99.192.68.167 (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
The key phrases in what you just wrote are "and this name change is widely reported" and "begins the process". I agree with both of these, but point out that the announcement itself is not the issue in establishing a common name, but whether or not it is widely reported and used by news outlets and others. The mere fact alone that an announcement was made does nothing to shift a common name. 99.192.68.167 (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
If Muhammad Ali had not made an announcement of the change of his name, then the ball would never have gotten rolling on reliable sources using it, so obviously the announcement itself does something. We can recognize the simple fact that most such announcements eventually yield common usage, and that forecasting against that actually predicts the less likely outcome. bd2412 T 14:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood my original point. When asking the question "What is this person's common name?" various things might count as an answer to that, but saying "it's their legal name" does not matter, since it might be (like for Sting) a legal name that no one uses. Saying "it's the name they prefer people use" does not matter, since the relevant question is what name is used, not what name does the person want us to use. Saying "it's the name the person intends to use and intends to make a legal name" does not matter for the same reasons. That announcements can result in changes of use by the media and the public is indisputable, but the announcement itself is no evidence that media and public use has changed, thus no evidence that the "common" name has actually changed. 99.192.77.201 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
My point, however, is that such an announcement almost always precipitates a change in actual usage. This is a fact that we can recognize when determining what constitutes a common name for purposes of an article title. bd2412 T 15:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the key words are "almost always precipitates". If it does precipitate a change in actual use, then the change in actual use is what matters, not the announcement that caused it. If it does not precipitate a change in actual use, then the fact that is was announced also does not matter. To think that the announcement itself matters because of what is likely to follow from it is to violate WP:BALL. 99.192.77.201 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
The WP:BALL rolls both ways. If we presume that the announcement will not precipitate such a change, despite the common experience of this change occurring, then we are just as guilty of acting on a prediction. bd2412 T 16:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It only would if I were saying that an announcement should be counted as evidence that a change will not take place. "If we presume that the announcement will not precipitate such a change...." That is not only not what I said, but would be an absurd thing to think. My position is explicitly to not predict one way or the other at all based on announcements. You say you want announcements to count for a change. That means you are suggesting something in conflict with WP:BALL, not me. 99.192.77.201 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
99.192.77.201, it sounds like you oppose the legal status, subject's intentions, and subject's preferences considerations. However, two questions: do you think we should still discuss those points, and do you have any other (alternative) points you would like to discuss? Or do you think the policy should remain exactly as it is? CaseyPenk (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I do not think that any of intentions, preferences, or legal names help answer the question "what is the person's common name" then I would say that they are not worth discussing. But if they are to be discussed, it should be made clear that the suggestions are to do something other than use the common name. A little bit higher up you suggested that moving away from WP:COMMONNAME was not what you were suggesting, but clarifying it might help. That seems good to me, which is why I mentioned the experts vs general public discussion at the top if this talk page. Knowing how to tell when a name change has become a new common name would help. It seems in the Manning case there was much discussion of which sources were using the old name and which the new with regard to whether the new name had become "common", and that is worth sorting out a bit more. I should add, it took a month after Metta World Peace changed his name from "Ron Artest" before that page moved. While there were editors who thought it should have moved sooner, it took a while for there to be a consensus about the name being "common". 99.192.77.201 (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions about where, if anywhere, considerations about intentions, preferences, and legal names could fit into the policy? Can you think of a name for a new section? Even if you don't agree with their inclusion, perhaps you have thoughts on what section they could be included under.
Also, could you clarify exactly what you mean by "worth sorting out a bit more"? What, specifically, should we sort out more? Should we clarify the bit about giving more weight to recent sources rather than to older ones? CaseyPenk (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Can you think of a name for a new section?" They sound to me like "Replacements for COMMONNAME" or "Alternatives to COMMONNAME".
"recent sources rather than to older ones" That's important to discuss, but I was also thinking about something that goes beyond that. Suppose a person is VERY famous under one name, becomes less famous, and then switches names. What media there is left interested enough to still report on the person might all switch to the new name, yet to the vast majority of people the previous name is the one the person is known by. So it's not just comparing the media now to the media past, but also asking if we should be looking for measurements of how "common" a name is now other than what news reports say. 99.192.77.201 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
That is the Cat Stevens problem right in a nutshell - born Steven Demetre Georgiou, became famous as Cat Stevens, and then declined in fame and became Yusuf Islam. However, what about if the person announces their name change when they are effectively at the height of their fame? That was the case with Muhammad Ali, Metta World Peace, and Chaz Bono (who is probably most famous for his change of identity). bd2412 T 20:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be a case by case basis, in the case of manning what is she/he most famous for? is it the wikileaks scandal or the name and gender change? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cassius Clay and Lew Alcindor were not most famous for their name changes. bd2412 T 20:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, with a famous person changing their name at the height of their fame it is a good question to ask whether or not the common name changes immediately. If Tiger Woods announced tomorrow that he was changing his name to something completely different, I bet it would be reported by every media outlet in the world, reporters talking to him would use the new name right away, and publications would use the new name right away while also noting that he used to be known as Tiger Woods. Serious golf fans might star using the new name right away, or they might not. People who know who Woods is, but are not golf fans might not only not use the new name, but they might have trouble remembering what it is for a while. So the question of when a new name becomes a common name even for the most famous people is a good question and one we should discuss more fully.
Knowledgekid87, it should not matter why a person is famous. So long as a person is notable enough to have an article and we can determine what the person's common name is it does not matter what their name was when they became famous. 99.192.50.11 (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
You are correct that basing titles off intentions / preferences / legal status does not strictly fall under the banner of "common names." In that sense the section header would be slightly inaccurate; perhaps we should rename the section if we move ahead with a change to its contents, or else move the name changes bit to a sub-section or some other section. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it might be worthwhile to reconsider how article titles are chosen in general it is a complex topic and would be difficult to manage. Limiting the scope to people might be a good place to start. As have been pointed out in the past week, extra care should be given when dealing with living people so giving this topic extra attention seems appropriate. Limiting the discussion to transgender name changes would be a wasted opportunity and having a more general scope has the benefit of forcing everyone to consider how their arguments affect other cases, not only one particular emotionally charged issue that one might feel passionately about.
Two suggested discussion points:
  • Should we try to avoid names that reasonably could be considered offensive by some groups?
  • Is it preferable to use the most recent name, rather than the most common when referring to people in article titles?
--Space simian (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Space simian, I can see how there might be merit in limiting the scope, as there are very many types of articles, but perhaps limiting to people might be a bit too narrow. Some things come to be named and change names in pretty much the same way that people do. So for a person, no one chooses their own name (at first, anyway). A name is given to us at birth by our parents (most of the time). The same is true for things like sports teams, films, songs, books, paintings, buildings, competitions, and commercial products. Someone responsible for bringing them into being names them first, and then changes might follow. Naming for things like discoveries of new species of living organisms, celestial bodies, and diseases also have similar stories: Someone in an "official" capacity might name it first and then public usage can take over and create a nickname that becomes the one commonly used. It might be useful to look at some of these cases as well. For example, it seems odd that the Wikipedia page for The White Album is called "The Beatles (album)", seeming to prefer a "birth" name to the name everyone - including the surviving Beatles themselves - use. A discussion of whether that really is the right name for that article might be worth contrasting with the fact that we have an article called "Elvis Costello", not "Declan MacManus" (even though it's his birth name, a name he chose to be his legal name, and the name he often uses for official songwriting credits). When names get tricky, sometimes it might be useful to look to non-humans with names too. 99.192.77.201 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
How we use peoples names raises special moral consideration that we do not have to take into account when talking about things. People always have a current, well defined, formal name that usually can be unambiguously determined. I'm thinking it is more respectful to use peoples formal names (which would solve the transgender name change issue as well as others) rather than the most common name. --Space simian (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "formal" name, unless you mean "legal" name. But that would mean that the article for Elvis Costello should be titled "Declan McManus" and the article for Sting should be titled "Gordon Sumner" (or should it be "Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner"?) As Sting said in the film Bring on the Night when several journalists called him "Gordon" at a press conference, "My children call me Sting, my mother calls me Sting, who is this Gordon character?" 99.192.77.201 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
I was thinking of the name that would normally be used to politely address someone that was not a close friend or family. Think "what would the Queen do?" :). Do we need to consider what Gordon thinks? Maybe the most common form of the most recent name would do. What would be the problem with moving 'Sting (musician)' to 'Gordon Sumner' and let the 'Sting' disambiguation page point to it? The article can still mention Sting of course. If we know Sting does not use his legal name but rather Sting, then that would be the name my suggestion above favours, the problem is rather that it might be hard to determine but in that case it is probably not controversial either. (An exception for stage names/pseudonyms is another possibility.) --Space simian (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is another problem with "legal" names. Sometimes when a person adopts a stage name, they change their name legally and sometimes they do not. Sometimes they do not change it right away, but do so long after it becomes their common name. It can often be difficult to determine accurately whether or not a stage name is also a legal name. Then there are the women who get married and keep their previous name as their professional name, yet it is never clear if they took a husband's name as a new legal name. Establishing what a person's legal name is might be harder than determining their common name, and might also be less helpful to a reader looking for an article. Elvis Costello has always been famous under that name, but initially he kept his brith name ("Declan Patrick MacManus"). But then he legally changed his name to "Elvis Costello". But then he decided to change it back legally, but adding a new middle name ("Declan Patrick Aloysius Macmanus"). It's interesting reading for fans looking at his page, but confusing if his page switches locations often while his common name does not change. 99.192.77.201 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
There is no confusion for readers since we can redirect pages and have disambiguation pages. I'm not advocating using the legal name but rather use what people want to be called (within reason). There are several cases where everyone knows the subject of the article actually uses a different name and using the old name can be considered offensive and a political statement, in those cases I think WP should use the most recent name they use for themselves. It is not so hard really. I'm not sure about stage names and pseudonyms, problem is that people might reject such names in the future as well (e.g. Cat Stevens). Determining what name someone prefer is not so hard, if it isn't the most commonly known name someone is bound to show up on the article talk-page and point it out and if they can verify it WP would change it. --Space simian (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects help to a point, but when the person's legal name is not known to a reader and sufficiently different from their real name it can still be confusing. Common names are less likely to confuse because they are ... common. Also, by your suggestion the page for Martin Sheen would be called "Ramon Estevez", but there already is a page for Ramon Estevez, Sheen's son. So someone looking for Sheen's page now not only has to know Sheen's legal name, but which "Ramon" to look for.
Trying to avoid offense is a losing battle. It adds a subjective element that we need not introduce, which just makes naming harder. I like WP:CENSOR and would not like to see the policy on titles changed to conflict with that. Besides, if we do decide to avoid offensive titles, what do we do about titles that might be offensive, but to people other than the subject of the page? Should how the Kennedy family feels affect whether or not we name a page "Dead Kennedys"? Should we change the title of the page called "Nigger" to "N-word" because the title might offend people? For Wikipedia to not use a common name because it is offensive or political is for Wikipedia to take a position on the name and the politics behind it. But to have a consistent policy of using the common name, whatever it might be, says that we will not get involved on the question of whether or not the name is appropriate.
The article for Romani people begins by telling us that "Romani are widely known in the English-speaking world by the exonym 'Gypsies'...." The article is not called "Gypsies" because that term is considered offensive, but that is for Wikipedia to state it's disapproval of the name, which makes the titling political. Yet we have an article called "Eskimo" despite the fact that in "Canada and Greenland, the term Eskimo has fallen out of favour, as it is sometimes considered pejorative and has been replaced by the term Inuit." Trying to weigh what does and does not cause offense gets Wikipedia further away from it's job of providing factual information, no matter what people think of those facts. The common name is the common name, no matter how offensive it might be. Articles can tell us that names are considered offensive, as they do with "Nigger" and "Eskimo", but that does not mean we need to change the title as is done for "Romani people". 99.192.77.201 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
This discussion is great and brings out some important points. Before we get too far down the rabbit hole, I ask that we first agree upon what points we're actually going to discuss. That is, what do you think of the suggestions above and the specific wording that follows them? That will help steer our discussion in a more focused direction. It sounds like this discussion represents the "avoid offense" bullet point; are there any other points you wish to add? CaseyPenk (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sub-thread started as one about scope, and I think the scope should be as wide as possible. Even when we veered off into talking about offense, examples of articles that are not named for people became relevant. So I would just reiterate that the scope should be very wide. It is best if the basic rules for titles can be general enough to apply to all articles, including when we ask questions about offense. 99.192.77.201 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
I do see the value in keeping the scope as general as possible, but it seems like the immediate desire among many is to figure out how to deal with article titles for transgender people. Since it's such a pressing current topic. Dealing with all articles, name changes or not, is a massive undertaking that I don't think is appropriate to the (relatively limited) goals most people are trying to achieve here. I think most people are satisfied with the policy in general but want some tweaks / exceptions rather than a fundamental rethinking of the entire policy. In short, I think it could be overkill to go that route. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that a very specific, single case is what has motivated people to seek policy changes. The idea that we should make a special exception in the general policy that most people are, as you admit, satisfied with for that reason is a bad one. Hard cases make bad law. 99.192.77.201 (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
"The article is not called "Gypsies" because that term is considered offensive" Actually the term Gypsy is not considered offensive in Britain. Some Wikipedia editors have claimed it to be true, but have had difficulty finding many reliable sources to back it up, while in Britain there are plenty of example of it use as a self identifying label: see for example The Gypsy Council (one of their pages says: "In the UK today we are proud to be Gypsy's but in Europe many people regard the term Gypsy as a term of abuse and prefer to be called Roma or ..." ). The term is not used for the article on Romany because it has two slightly different legal meanings (that reflect common usage) which comes under the WP:AT sentence "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems...". The two legal meanings in England are: a Gypsy is anyone who lives an itinerant lifestyle in a Caravan who is not part of a circus under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960; and a Gypsy is a Romany under the Race Relations Act 1976 (see Gypsy (term)#Use in English law). So under the Caravan Act meaning Romany are subgroup within a broader meaning of Gypsy. -- PBS (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also like WP:CENSOR but do not think there is reason for concern about censorship here. I do not suggest WP should avoid mentioning facts because they might be offensive only that when choosing the best article title WP should try to avoid offensive names when reasonable alternatives are available; there is no reason to rub it in peoples face, that would only be puerile. Names that are common but by some considered offensive or derogatory can be mentioned in the article explaining that fact. I think Romani are a good example, even if Gypsie isn't considered universally offensive the fact that it is by a fair amount of people is a good reason to favour the use of Romani when choosing article title. It shouldn't be the only factor when deciding on title but it should be given some weight. Since you mention the n-word I came to think of a local debate: In Sweden there is a pastry commonly known as 'negerboll' (lit. negro ball) after some debate I think most reasonable people agreed that it makes everybody's life easier if it is called chokladboll (lit. chocolate ball) instead. ...But I think CaseyPenks's is probably right that this debate should be saved for the actual discussion. --Space simian (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a further problem that in many jurisdictions the concept of a "legal name" just isn't there and a person can call themselves what they like so long as they aren't using it to defraud. Here a woman getting married can use her married surname immediately after the key moment of the service without going through any further hoops and many organisations will accept just the marriage certificate if they need proof of the new name. It can be very difficult to tell when an actor has adopted their stage name as their actual name and there just aren't grand registers that can be cited. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apply WP:COMMONNAME... with any name change we need to have some patience... don't go rushing off to change the article title as soon as you hear that someone changed his/her name. Wait for the sources to start reflecting the name change. Note that can take some time for sources to catch up to reality and start to refer to the person by their new name. What we want to make sure of is that sources have not rejected the new name. We should follow the sources when it comes to names... not lead them. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: When you talk of "offense", do you only mean offense to the person who is the primary subject of the article or anyone who might be offended? Because if you mean the former, then we should recognize (as grim as this observation is) that when a transgender person dies we no longer have to worry about offending them, so there would no longer be any reason not to go with the common name for the article title. But if we are going to consider how others might be offended, then we need to know whose offense matters and whose does not. Should the fact that members of the Westboro Baptist Church might be offended by Wikipedia using the post-transition name for a transgender person count? If not, why not? For Wikipedia to say that the offense of other transgender people counts, but the offense of WBO members does not seems to violate WP:POV. 99.192.51.153 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (==99.192....)[reply]
I understand what you are saying and agree that for the most part "offence" is very poor argument, but I don't think it is completely irrelevant in all circumstances. When weighting it against another pretty weak argument: the frequency of use, it is reasonable to give it some consideration. If you look at wikipedia title controversies I think you would find that it is often straightforward which term is offensive and which is not (as substantiated by sources) and if it is unclear one would simply fall back on other principles. Space simian (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...or maybe not. It would be dangerous if we wander into WP:POVNAMING land, we don't want to inadvertently assist in whitewashing as in Obi-Wan's 'environmental nightmare' example simply because someone manage to spin a name as offensive.--Space simian (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussions

Blueboar, it is a good question to ask just when a name becomes a new "common" name. The section at the top of this page (called "RfC: Interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME") touches on this very question. There the question is about the names experts use versus the names the public uses, but the same question could be asked about names the media use versus publicly used names. 99.192.77.201 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
I was not necessarily talking about media sources, although they are part of the mix. I agree that when assessing a COMMONNAME we should (and do) give the various sources due weight. My point was more basic... In determining the best article title, Wikipedia follows sources, we don't lead the way. This always causes some delay when it comes to name changes. There will always be a period of time (it may only be a few hours... but it also could be several years) before sourcing (in the generic) catches up to reality and starts to refer to the subject by a new name. And occasionally, the sources actually reject the new name (The rock star Prince was a good example of this... when he changed his name to that odd symbol, sourcing rejected it and either continued to call him "Prince" or "The artist formerly known as Prince"). Also, we don't necessarily use Official names. I realize that we want to be sensitive to the subject's desires... but we do need to wait for sources to start using a new name before we change. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While it is not the entirety of the discussion, I do think there's an aspect to this discussion that suggests making an exception to "waiting for the sources" and instead suggests "leading the sources." Perhaps that exception could be justified on WP:BLP grounds. I'm not sure if we would need to "justify" or provide a "policy rationale" for changing this policy if it conflicts with others, such as WP:RS. Since this one is policy also. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the main point to discuss is whether "lead the sources" should ever be an exception to "follow the usage in sources", and, if so, under what specific conditions, and, in particular, whether a name change by a trans person situation always, sometimes or never qualifies. --B2C 19:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • I would like to propose that we don't need to scrap common name altogether: We can simply state that birth names "have problems" for the purpose of WP:COMMONNAME's "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" when titling articles for transgender people in policy. Common name can remain largely undamaged; after all, I think it's not unfair to say that using birth names for trans people pretty problematic, so we should just spell that out in policy, that way it's clear how that policy should be interpreted. Cam94509 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm...let's see. Jimbo moved Kate Middleton to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge the day of the wedding, while Jorge Bergoglio's bio was renamed the day he became Pope. In both cases we were ahead of most coverage in English, appropriately so. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our policy should reflect the permissiblility of making moves like that. Notably, we have special naming conventions for royals for no other reason than because they are royals. If our policies can recognize those archaic designations, there is no reason that our policies can not recognize the applicability of special naming conventions to persons belonging to other well-defined social groups. bd2412 T 20:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, that those pages were moved so quickly does not mean it was the right decision. It might have been and it is certainly possible for a common name to switch right away, but nothing more general follows from that.
BD2412, we might have special naming conventions for royals just because they are royal, but if we do it is a bad idea. That is not a good reason to name their articles any differently from any other article. If I were to walk up to anyone (here in Canada, anyway) and say "Did you hear about what Prince Charles said?" everyone would know right away that I was referring to Charles, Prince of Wales. In fact, 99% of the time people talk about him by name all they say is "Prince Charles". So that would seem to be his common name, thus what the article should be named. If I wanted to find out information about any of the other people who also have been known as "Prince Charles", there is a disambiguation page for that. But to everyone, including the media, he is just "Prince Charles", so that is what the article should be called. So we do have peculiar naming conventions in some cases, like royals, and we could decide to have more, but having any peculiar conventions is a bad idea. Simplicity is best. 99.192.50.11 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)[reply]
One of the main reasons that we have special naming conventions for royals is so that we can be consistent. In fact, consistency is one of the five main factors that have been deemed to be important for our article naming. There are thousands of royals, most of whom are very little known, but the ones who are well-known are titled so as to be consistent with the entire spectrum of the group. We don't always succeed in establishing this kind of consistency, but we try. As for our articles on subjects who change their names, and particularly on transgender subjects, perhaps our policy could indeed pay a bit more attention to consistency across the spectrum of the group. bd2412 T 03:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finding the article is not a problem for the readers, WP has 'Prince Charles' (the most commonly used name) redirect to 'Charles, Prince of Wales', and on his page there is a link to the 'Prince Charles (disambiguation)' page if the reader was looking for a different Prince Charles. --Space simian (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In those cases we favoured the most recent name after a change. In society the most natural thing to do is to use the most recent name. If people change their name (for whatever reason) you do not insist on using the old one simply because it is more commonly used historically. Only Wikipedians understand the COMMONNAME argument, the rest of the world (i.e. the readers) expect the most recent name (which was also the cause for recent controversy). --Space simian (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: COMMONNAME is a problematic policy as it's worshiped as a non-negotiable sixth pillar of Wikipedia. In reality, it's guidance on what article titles we should use: the section is titled "use commonly recognizable names", not "use the most common name". Personally, I would agree with adding something like "If an article subject expresses preference for a certain name, that preference should be given weight as long as its usage is reflected in reliable sources". I've got no problems with moving Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam, or Snoop Dogg to Snoop Lion, and I don't know why other people would either. Readers aren't as stupid and easily confused as many COMMONNAME zealots would have you believe. Sceptre (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, as has been pointed out in the original post in this section, COMMONNAME also says that it's perfectly reasonable to use less common names if the most common is problematic. I can't see how this can't apply to trans people whose birth name is commonly used; I can't count the times the Leveson Inquiry's section on trans people has been cited by people such as myself since its publication. Sceptre (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're onto something here. As I look back more into the idea about birth names, that seems to get at the heart of the issue for articles titles about transgender people. The existing policy does already consider problematic names, it just doesn't spell out what names would be considered problematic. By clarifying which names would be problematic, we stand better chance of consensus since it's an incremental change rather than a fundamental rethinking. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment COMMONNAME is only one criteria for titling an article. Others are found at WP:CRITERIA, and we also have article naming conventions for dozens of different topics, including many listed here: Template:Naming_conventions. I agree we shouldn't be slavishly attached to commonname, and especially when commonname is under dispute, the other criteria should definitely be considered. Note this line, from WP:AT:"The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." The criteria are Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Conciseness; Consistency. I do think we should have stronger language around name changes, but I oppose any sort of transgender-exceptionalism here. There's no reason to believe titling an article with a TG-person's former (and presumably public) name, even if for a short time while waiting for sources to catch up, will do more or less harm than waiting to rename based on an artist's new stage name, a new name b/c of marriage, a country which has changed it's name, or a person who has changed their name for religious reasons, or any number of other reasons things or people get renamed. If we start to value some name changes more than others, we get into serious POV territory, where all name changes are equal, but some name changes are more equal than others. I think a stronger emphasis on the fact that much more weight should be given to post-move sources vs pre-move (for obvious reasons), and we should use the full scope of WP:AT and not just focus on commonname arguments in these cases. Again, considering the reader, what is the reader searching for? What are they expecting to find? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this "There's no reason to believe titling an article with a TG-person's former (and presumably public) name, even if for a short time while waiting for sources to catch up, will do more or less harm than waiting to rename based on an artist's new stage name, a new name b/c of marriage, a country which has changed it's name, or a person who has changed their name for religious reasons, or any number of other reasons things or people get renamed." is plainly incorrect. Calling me by my former public name in a space where I was going by my current public name would be taken as an insult if you didn't correct yourself (and might even feel excluded from that space if you refused to correct yourself if asked); I don't think the same is true about an artists stage name, or a new name b/c of marriage. The only one I can think of that really might compare is a religious name change. There is a difference in level of harm, and I think that that difference reflects on a wikipedia page. That said, I agree with most of the rest of what you've said. Cam94509 (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
while it seems you have personal experience in this matter I'm not going to quibble over your own reported 'harm' thAt may come from having a Wikipedia article titled after your heretofore previously well-known name (since that is the case we're dealing with - its not about someone addressing you at the workplace, nor is it revealing a name that was previously private.) however, I cannot agree with your assertion that we can compare 'harm done' on some sort of scale and that at one end of the scale you have only two groups of ppl: trans and religious conversions - while at the other end of the scale we have everything else, including whole tribes of native people's who must continue to wear the moniker of their oppressors, as well as individuals who have changed their name for reason X. We simply cannot compare 'harm' in this way, and decide to do an emergency rename for some (by asserting that a Wikipedia title is *really* harmful) while telling the others to get in line and wait for commonname. We can't rank 'harm' in a neutral fashion in this way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you measure other subjective criteria when a judgement is needed to apply policy? For example, an editor can be blocked for being disruptive, but one person's disruption is another person's vigorous debate. In that case I expect you'd try to build a consensus of opinion to decide whether a person was disruptive enough to warrant a block: in this case what's the problem with building consensus and so establishing precedent about what is harmful enough for special measures? Most certainly there is a spectrum of harm, and I think we could all agree that Snoop Dogg lies well south of the threshold; meanwhile myself and others are trying to build consensus that trans birth names are above that threshold. Chris Smowton (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know Snoop Dogg is south of the threshold? He had a religious conversion. He explicitly rejects some of the past represented by Snoop Dogg. Can you say for sure that on the "harm-o-meter", Snoop is less harmed than Manning by their respective article titles (esp given that Manning explicitly recognizes that Bradley will continue to be used when discussing the trial, etc)? I think we need to find a way to treat them the same, and find a neutral way to disintermediate. I think usage in reliable sources is still the most neutral way, even if it means in some cases people get their feelings hurt. If that happens, then its simply because Wikipedia mirrors society and society can be rather harsh. The IP makes some good points below on this topic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I had thought Snoop Dogg/Lion was the silly "what if I decided I was King of Denmark?" example du jour; I had no idea there was a religious thing going on there. In that case he may well score higher on the harm-o-meter (a term I'll happily embrace without the scare quotes :)) I see your reasoning about deferring to popular usage, in that it ducks the problem of designing a consensus-based harm-o-meter and is thus the easiest solution. It may well be that it is impossible to run the harm-o-meter without causing an unconstructive talk page explosion every time, and if so I agree we should fall back to treating identity like any other somewhat-nebulous topic of reportage; however for the time being I continue to hope that a reasonably-usable meter can be built out of case-by-case discussion and setting of precedent, with the particular goal of making the place more welcoming to trans editors and readers, and the general goal of encouraging civility towards minority groups even when the majority is largely indifferent about the group and relevant etiquette. Chris Smowton (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the reasons that we came rather quickly to a rough consensus to use the feminine pronouns, as most people here seem to agree that in terms of gender identity, the individual is ultimately the best arbiter. However, in terms of what we title an article (which is NOT the same thing as the person's real "name"), the individual is *not* the best arbiter - rather, the broader world is the best arbiter, because the goal of an article title is to indicate to the reader what this thing is usually called, and ensure that the majority of readers are not confused and that they have ended up at the right place. I'm sure BP would like one of their oil spills to be called "BP's technical fluid leakage" instead of "BP's environmental nightmare" - but that's not up to them - it's up to the world. Language, ultimately, is determined by usage. You may say, what you call someone in polite conversation should be determined by them ("Please, don't call me Joseph, only my mother calls me that, just call me Joe") - and that's fair enough - but we aren't having a polite conversation, we are talking about what is in 36 point bold font at the top of the article and what do other articles link to. If we take a hypothetical example, per the arguments made by trans-advocates, we should use the name Chelsea in the title EVEN if no news sources whatsoever have switched (I know that's not the case, but this is reductio ad absurdum). Indeed, wikipedia was feted by those same advocates and various news sources for having been ahead of the game, when in fact we should have been behind. I agree we should make wikipedia welcome to editors of all persuasions, but that may also mean that some of those persuasions have to temper their own feelings about what is "right" and what "must be done" and what constitutes "hate speech" and get behind the core policy of WP:NPOV - this is a two-way street. Take one look at the debates in Israel/Palestine or even what Ireland should point to, this is a tough neighborhood, so you (unfortunately) need thick skin if you're going to participate in content disputes! Sometimes the compromise solution is one that neither side really wanted, but that both sides agree to accept. It's not a question of etiquette - etiquette means you address Obama as Mr. President, but that's not what we do here. Etiquette means you don't mention the indiscretion of the congressman, but we don't shy away from that either - we mention it, and refuse to remove it if it's true, even if it brings his wife to tears. In fact, there are tens of thousands, if not more, BLPs (of *all* genders), who would love nothing more than to delete their bio, because on balance it hurts them more than it helps them (b/c people usually get in the news for doing something bad, but much more rarely for doing something good), but we don't do emergency admin actions in those cases. If those same people advocating for something as (frankly) trivial as an article name change were simultaneously leading the charge to clean up other numerous BLP violations for groups that weren't "theirs" - such as native american tribes, or deghettoizing categories for women, or etc etc I'd have a lot more sympathy, but for now this all reeks of serious POV-pushing into one particular area without concern or thought for what it means for non-trans articles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the title is not determining a person's true identity, but rather their heading in an encyclopaedia, and I do believe that's what (most) editors advocating for BM (for example) intend to do. However, even though the underlying rationale is "There wasn't consensus to use CM, so we'll use BM as the most commonly known identifier," it was nontheless perceived as a rejection of the CM identity in favour of BM as the "proper" one. Again I'm not saying anybody intended to send that message, only that it was received and that that reception is the root of the harm caused by the decision.
I agree that there are many cases where one has to be hard-nosed about this sort of thing, such as your congressman example; however, those examples shared the critical property that to be polite would require excision of facts, such as record of a political or sexual indiscretion. By contrast using a trans person's new name is only etiquette, in the sense that it is only a matter of style, not content. There is no need to be hard-nosed in this particular case because accuracy is not at stake; therefore by default we should pick the polite option.
It is certainly the case that many people advocating in this direction, myself included, are unusually sympathetic to the trans cause, but I think that's an inevitability -- if you're discussing X, the people that don't care much about X will drop out quickly and you'll be left with those invested in the outcome one way or another. As to what a policy about trans names would mean to other articles though, surely the answer is sweet nothing, if worded correctly! If a candidate policy used phrasing like "Biographies of people who have publically declared a trans identity" or the like then it needn't have any direct implication for other topics: those may well be discussions worth having, but are neither helped nor hindered by this one. Chris Smowton (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally sympathetic to the issues that trans people face. In fact, I created an article at Kristin Beck (and not Christopher T. Beck), but the reason no-one disputed that is that before "coming-out" as Kristin, "Chris Beck" was not notable, we didn't have oodles of media coverage, and readers did not know who Chris Beck was - they only knew her as Kristin. But, if we make an exception that says "As soon as a trans-person announces a name change, we should retitle the article immediately; for everyone else, we should wait until RS catch up", that is inherently not neutral, because it begs the question, why is there an exception here? Above, I think you're right, "a rejection of the CM identity in favour of BM as the "proper" one." - this is actually what happened, because that is what sources were doing at that moment - they were not yet accepting the new identity, they were rather struggling with it (read the early articles, and you can see the confusion - and see how AP, NY Times, and others flip-flopped and stumbled around before settling on the proper way to address manning). So I think the current read of sources seems to be "no consensus" on Bradley vs Chelsea, and the discussion here mirrored the real world, and the result did as well. In 30 days, that may well change, and if COMMONNAME becomes clearly a wash between Bradley/Chelsea, then we can start to look at other considerations, including WP:OFFICIALNAME, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding making a special article naming convention for trans people, I agree that it would be unusual, and does indeed raise the question "why an exception?", but I think that simply reflects the fact that their situation is in fact exceptional (though not entirely unique -- again cite BD's point about religious conversion). It is unusual in the fact that the common name for a person is also arguably a slur against that person. Suppose there was a person who was famous under a clearly pejorative name ("Steve the Asshole"); I suspect wiki would sidestep appearing to back that pejorative view by using a less common name, rather than simply mirroring whether the press approved of Steve. Note also that the existing MOS/pronouns text overrides RSes in the same way, advising a particular usage if there is a publically known trans identity, not if the press adopts it.
As to rejecting the CM identity, the disagreement here hinges on what it means to reject. As you describe it, the community said "we think BM is proper because that's the most frequently used name; a thing's proper name is what people call it", whereas the message that comes across is that the CM identity isn't just unpopular but outright false; that she just does not exist, and BM should stop playing make-believe. Again to be clear I don't think you or anyone else is seriously peddling that view; I simply think a clear policy along the lines of MOS/pronouns would prevent that anti-trans impression from being given. Chris Smowton (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change to COMMONNAME and no new section etc. I agree with what Blueboar wrote above, and I think that the current section on COMMONNAME covers this issue. The suggestion "one should consider only the name used in reliable sources published after the name change," begs the question "What about a half a second after"? If there have been no publications after that change what title do we give the article? As always there needs to be some sort of reasonableness in this which is what the curretn wording "more weight should ..." implies and I think the suggested alternative strips away. -- PBS (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for transgender people

  • Comment: suggest the scope should for the time being be limited to transgender people, because attempting to formulate a general policy that also includes stage names, maiden names and so on ignores the fact that trans people are an unusual case with features that aren't present for either performers or married people. Specifically, it is a common anti-trans slur to use a birth name in a manner that suggests it is the true name, similar to wilfully using incorrect pronouns as already covered by the MOS, and titling an article for their birth name may be, or may be read as, pejorative usage of that kind. At this point people often chime in arguing that Wiki isn't for promoting trans people's cause, and this is true, but when wiki will report on trans people, and will make some choice about how to address them, it might as well make an effort to be civil in doing so. It is of course impossible to avoid offending all people in all ways, but this is a specific offense that is easy to codify and that can be avoided at no cost to the fidelity of the encyclopaedia. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (note: BD makes a good point above about religious conversion presenting a similar case. I suggest a good approach would be to formulate the transgender naming policy and then have a separate discussion about expanding it to religious identity if people want to, in order to keep the discussion at any one time as simple as possible.) Chris Smowton (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, you want an RfC on the proposal that an exception should be made to the recognizability criterion of WP:AT (a.k.a. COMMONNAME) specifically and solely for transgender people? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, yes. I think wiki ought to recognise that there is an unusual imperative to use an asserted identity on grounds of civility and respect in that case. Note that the MOS:IDENTITY passage about using gendered pronouns corresponding to a person's last-publically-asserted identity already makes a specific concession of the same scope (i.e. it applies to "any person whose gender might be questioned," which is a slightly larger set than transgender people) and with the same aim; I'd like to see a similar passage in WP:AT. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Incidentally I agree that some sort of general AT/IDENTITY needs to be hammered out in due course; I advocate a specific discussion first because I think starting with the general case will make it much harder to work out what consensus has been reached because the decision space is much larger) Chris Smowton (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we can have a special naming policy for royals, who only fall into that group because they happen to be born into or marry into a narrowly defined lineage, then we can have a special naming policy for transgender people. This promotes consistency in the titling of articles within the defined area of interest. bd2412 T 13:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, your first four words are what worry me. "If we can have...." Sure, we CAN have it, but should we? I have yet to hear an argument that the special naming policy for royals is a good idea. Someone said something about "consistency", but I don't see why the general naming policy would result in inconsistency of names for articles for royals. We CAN have 1000 different "special" naming policies for 1000 different kinds of cases, but that way lies insanity. You have already suggested sliding down the slippery slope from 1 to 2. Chris Smowton's suggestion that we deal with transgender names first and religion, race, and other cased later suggest we could have 3, 4, 5, or more. I say, if anything, we should reel that 1 back in. 99.192.51.153 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (==99.192....)[reply]
bd2412 - To play the devil's advocate; WP:NCROY is the source of constant contention and bickering. Perhaps we should be discussing eliminating WP:NCROY rather than making more policies like NCROY. NickCT (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every policy in Wikipedia is a "source of constant contention and bickering". bd2412 T 14:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ooops! We're not voting on this. But I still support it. Using the regular disambiguation parentheticals we use for any other articles is enough. Henry IV of England can just as easily be Henry IV (England), which is already a redirect. Then put Henry IV of France at the currently vacant Henry IV (France) and voila! royal articles are named just like the rest. No special rules are needed. 99.192.51.153 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)[reply]
I'll make a deal with you. You get Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) removed, and I'll withdraw my support for this proposal. By the way, I would not be at all surprised if we do have 1,000 different "special" naming policies for 1000 different kinds of cases. Off the top of my head, I believe that we also have special practices for names of military campaigns, Roman family names, biological genera, U.S. cities, legal case names, asteroids, and concubines of Chinese emperors. Generally, these are in the name of consistency, bd2412 T 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your "deal" sounds like you are saying that you will continue to support a new bad policy unless I can get an existing bad policy changed. Compounding errors is generally a bad idea. Also, I don't really believe that there are many separate naming conventions. I checked WP:NCRN, for example, and it has radical suggestions like "Common names as regularly used in English are preferred" and "use the common name in English sources". The rest is about how to disambiguate. It is a "special" policy only insofar as it helps people in deciding what the common name actually is, not in offering an alternative to using the common name. 99.192.51.153 (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Chris Smowton, there are four reasons why I object to a more narrow scope. (1) If we are going to look at one kind of case first and others later, why transgender cases first? Sure, it is the flavour-of-the-moment, but that does not make it more pressing (in terms of possible future cases) or more important that other possible cases of offense. That we have not thought in the past to worry about religious offense or racial offense and now, even when we do, we tell them to get to the back of the line (even though those have been live issues for centuries and transgender naming is the new kid on the block) can (and will) appear to be offensive in its own right.
(2) The idea that we can ignore all cases but transgender ones and come up with a policy that will generalize is to make the same mistake that has been made for generations as a justification for exclusion. "Let's just find out how to treat white men for disease X and then generalize our findings to non-whites and women." There might be a good general policy that will cover both transgender cases and others, but to find it you have to consider all the cases together.
(3) Dealing with transgender cases now and others later has the potential to hide the actual consequences of any policy change. If we do decide on a new policy for transgender cases and that has direct consequences for other cases, then we better talk about those consequences before making any decision. What follows from any decision is important to discuss before making it.
(4) Dealing with gender separately from race, religion, and other cases presents the possibility that we will decide "We don't like offending people of type X, so let's change the rules to make them an exception. But people of type Y? Who cares about them? No 'special' rules for them!" If we are going to take offense seriously, then we need to be consistent on what we say about it, regardless of the basis of offense. A divide-and-conquer approach can help get a foot in the door so others can follow, but it can also set up a situation where some are allowed in and others not.
People change names for many reasons that are deeply personal and would be hurt or offended by people insisting on using their former name. Transgender people are (sometimes) one example of this. For Muhammad Ali, the name change was a religious conversion but it was also a deeply personal rejection of racism by rejecting what he called his "slave name". Matt Sandusky, who was sexually abused by his father, Jerry Sandusky, is changing his surname (along with that of his wife and their four children) so he no longer has to bear the name of his abuser. Linda Lovelace also rejected that name because of its association with her sexual abuse, yet Wikipedia's article still bears that name. Place names change for similar reasons. After the infamous "Niggerhead" camp incident involving Rick Perry, The Daily Show did a great segment pointing out that many places in America have the word "nigger" in their name. Should any of those place names be changed because the word is offensive, that should be treated the same as transgender and sexual abuse cases. As a local (to me) example, Halifax Central Junior High used to be called "Cornwallis Junior High School", but the name was changed because Edward Cornwallis, the founder of Halifax, promoted the genocide of the Mi'kmaq people. The name Washington Redskins is also widely regarded as offensive. Sports Illustrated journalist Peter King has recently announced that he will no longer use "Redskins" in his work. In 1995, St. John's University changed the name of its sports teams from "Redmen" to "Red Storm" for similar reasons. I raise all of these examples to point out that there are lots of article titles that can and do cause offense to people, so if we are going to take offense seriously as a concern we should address in article titles, then we should talk all of it equally seriously. No one's offense is more important here or should get priority treatment. Either all of it matters or none of it does. 99.192.51.153 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
"A divide-and-conquer approach can help get a foot in the door so others can follow, but it can also set up a situation where some are allowed in and others not." All very true, but if you've been at Wikipedia for any length of time you've found that change here can be painfully slow and gets bogged down in a lot of trivial concerns. Doing even simple things takes time and concerted effort and even then only happens one step at a time. Is it not better to do something that we find to be right rather than do nothing? Gradualism is simply the way things work here; Wikipedia wasn't built in a day.
There is already a framework in the article titles policy regarding offense. Namely the bit about "the most common has problems." It just doesn't state which titles are problematic. I think we could expand that bit based on areas of reasonable offense (e.g. names the subject prefers not to be called) that's also broad. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
99.192, I agree with pretty much all of this, and Casey's comment above -- to be absolutely clear, I'm not saying trans people are more specialier than other groups, only that (a) it's a group that's the subject of a current ongoing debate, making us ideally placed to formulate policy on the matter, and (b) I personally think cooking policies in a "modular" fashion (to steal your programming metaphor :)) may be more productive than trying to address the whole thing at one time because it'll lead to a series of small, focussed conversations rather than one epic, sprawling, hard-to-assess one. I don't think it's a huge deal whether it's done case-by-case or as a monolithic title style guide though since the results should be comparable. Chris Smowton (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Smowton, I have to like any comment that starts like this one :-) My one main point of disagreement is with this; "that's the subject of a current ongoing debate, making us ideally placed to formulate policy on the matter". I would say the fact that it is the issue-of-the-moment is precisely what makes it not ideally placed. Hot topics tend to brig out hot-headed advocates with strong biases, whatever those biases are. Making a policy during a crisis is always less preferable to making policy in a cool hour. So if any type of case is ideally placed, it probably is any one of the other examples I gave (well, the "Redskins" one might be a bit too hot) are cool enough right now to offer the prospect of more reasoned rather than impassioned discussion. 99.192.51.153 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]

No change needed

  • No change to COMMONNAME needed - I really don't see the purpose of this discussion. COMMONNAME is working fine. Bradley Manning will shortly change to Chelsea Manning once a new RM establishes that "Chelsea" is in fact the current COMMONNAME. We shouldn't be talking about changing COMMONNAME. COMMONNAME works. The Bradley Manning debate occurred b/c of rash Admin action and failure to follow COMMONNAME. We should be talking about changing policies that don't fall in line with COMMONNAME. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change to COMMONNAME needed per NickCT. COMMONNAME is a policy that works, and will work in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 14:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change to COMMONNAME needed—COMMONNAME, POVNAME, and TITLECHANGES already address the issue of name changes for public figures perfectly. It protects our ability to describe article subjects objectively without making exceptions for various protected classes. WP:BLP works in concert with this to protect living persons who are not generally known by their birth names, as outing them can cause physical harm. As NickCT noted, if we had followed these policies in the Manning title controversy instead of cutting off the discussion, I believe a large majority of the editors would have been happy with the result. DPRoberts534 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and the most common has problems"

It occurred to me in reading over some suggestions and comments (especially from Cam94509) that we already have a tool for dealing with names that may be problematic - namely, the following phrase in Wikipedia:Article titles:

When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

The only shortcoming with that phrase is that it doesn't specify which types of names are considered problematic. I propose we expand upon the above phrase with an explanation of exactly which names are problematic some examples of the kind of situations that make a name problematic. Here is my rationale:

  • Such a change would be general and would not favor or disfavor any particular group
  • Such a change would not depart from WP:COMMONNAME's focus on reliable sources, and would still require extensive coverage of the new name (the bit about "all of them fairly common" means 'commons in reliable sources')
  • Such a change would provide better guidance for future cases of name changes, so we are left scratching our heads less of the time about how to interpret policy

Thoughts? CaseyPenk (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated per 99.192's suggestion below. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly support this. It would be very helpful to offer some guidance on what "has problems" could mean. As written, it is too vague to be a lot of help. My only caution is a small nuance. You wrote about giving "an explanation of exactly which names are problematic", but that is too ambitious and potentially too limiting. I suggest that we try to give "some examples of the kind of situations that make a name problematic". Its a small, but important, difference in emphasis, but also in keeping with the spirit of the suggestion. 99.192.51.153 (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
By "some examples of the kind of situations that make a name problematic," do you mean a non-exhaustive listing that would include things like "when an entity changes its name and prefers to be known by the new name," among others? How would we decide which examples to include and which not to? CaseyPenk (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My general worry is if we make a change like this...
"When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. The most common name has problems in the following cases: A, B, and C."
... we presume that we have exhausted all possible reasonable examples of problems, which might not be true. Other editors in the future might identify further kinds of problems we failed to notice, and so it is good to keep the door open for them as well. But with a change like this...
"When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Examples of cases where the most common name has problems include the following: A, B, and C."
... we leave the door open for other editors to identify other problems we missed while specifying the ones we have noticed. For an example of how that worked in law, see Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly the subsection "Enumerated or analogous grounds" and how the phrase "in particular" was interpreted to be inclusive, but not exhaustive. As for the question of which examples to include and which not to include, we should include all of the ones that we can identify and decide are worth including. If that is 10, then it is 10. If it is none, then it is none. 99.192.51.153 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Your modification sounds reasonable. I agree that it would be more reasonable to give some major examples, while noting that the examples are not exhaustive. To that point, I would suggest we expand "Examples of cases where the most common name has problems include" to "Examples of cases where the most common name has problems include, but are not limited to" (emphasis mine). While common usage of "include" would allow for other examples, we want to be very clear the listing is non-exhaustive. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. 99.192.51.153 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
In terms of examples, what ideas does everyone have? Here are some ideas:
  • Former names, when the subject has indicated preference for a new name
  • Names widely considered to be pejoratives
CaseyPenk (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend "names that strongly imply something factually inaccurate about the subject" as that's an application that I think might see a reasonable amount of use. I really like where we're going with this, because making small changes instead of big changes is really where we should be headed here. Cam94509 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are suggesting that we should decide what names are indicators of gender and change the titles of articles where the name suggests a gender other than the person's actual gender. Well intentioned, but a hornets nest in reality. Just what names suggest ender will be contested (a web search shows that some people actually have named newborn girls "Bradley" with that spelling) and then there are the people who naturally have names that seem not to fit their gender, like Michael Learned, Noah Cyrus, and Glenn Close, not to mention cases like George Sand. 99.192.51.153 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)[reply]
Actually, I wasn't thinking about peoples names at all. I was thinking about the names of events or things where the name of the event or thing implied something false about it. Cam94509 (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some examples of factually inaccurate names? None come to mind, other than perhaps mis-labeling certain events as scandals or the like. Although, even then it's a matter of interpretation. We can judge the reliability of a source but judging truth is much more difficult, and not something I've seen us generally do. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can't think of a particularly good example right now. I'm willing to withdraw it if it seems like a thing that never happens, I just mentioned it because if we're going to write it as a "for example" sentence, I just wanted to include some cases where it might not be applied to people so that the reader didn't get the impression that it was only intended for people, and this seems like a class of cases where it might happen. If anyone has a better way of doing so, I think we should get a nonperson related case in there, as we should avoid leaving the impression that the section of the rule we are amending is only intended for the discussion of people's article titles. Cam94509 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should include examples that extend beyond just people, since this applies to all articles. Ideas from anyone else? CaseyPenk (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be circumspect about going beyond human names, since the potential for harm is greater for a person undergoing a change of identity than for, say, a stadium, or the Sears Tower. That said, I think a good "entity" example would be a company like Altria. bd2412 T 19:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Altria is a tricky one. They prefer to be known using the new name and using the old one can damage their reputation (by revealing who they are). I'm personally disinclined against honoring Philip Morris's name change request, but that's my personal POV. Still, objectively speaking, corporations are not people and are thus not subject to WP:BLP considerations. Any damage done to a corporation hurts their bottom line but is unlikely to result in them committing a suicide, a very real possibility for transgender people. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, the reason that name changes for places and events should be considered if name changes in people are going to be discussed is because they can cause offense as well. Examples I gave on this page include the "Niggerhead" camp and other places with "Nigger" in their name, schools like the former Cornwallis Junior High School, teams like Washington Redskins and St. John's Red Storm. To add an event to the list, what was once called "The Rape of Nanking" is now called "Nanking Massacre". Names can be changed where they are the cause of offense, so if avoiding offending people is a reasonable goal in article titling, then these all need to be considered as well. 99.192.74.67 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Regarding titles that "cause offense"... no, we don't always use the least offensive name as our title... See WP:POVNAMING. We follow the sources. When a significant majority of sources routinely use a seemingly offensive name, so do we. It may seem counter-intuitive, but following the sources and using the common but potentially offensive name is actually more neutral than not doing so.
What concerns me about this entire conversation is the idea that we should follow the subject's wishes and desires. that comes close to favoring some sort of "Official name" over "commonly used names". When it comes to article titles, Wikipedia does not necessarily use what the subject of an article wants to be called ... it uses whatever name is most commonly used by reliable sources. If a subject changes its name... we wait... we don't rush immediately off and change our title... we wait until enough sources have started to use the new name. Then we change. How long this will be depends on what the sources do... but the concept is the same for all name changes... people, places, things. It's a consistent policy and there is no need to change it. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we don't always wait. In many cases the naming conventions both on-Wiki and off it are often so clearly established (and usually written up) and common sense makes it clear the new name will take off that an article gets renamed on the spot with no controversy even if the Google count hasn't yet caught up. A recent example is the new Pope where we didn't go through a bureaucratic procedure of awaiting sources publishing with the papal title name in them and getting a clear count together then having a drawn out RM to change the title because it was common sense that it would end up there anyway - and indeed not having the article with named with the Pope's title in the days when everyone's rushing to find out more about him would have made the encyclopedia look out of date and either over-pedantic or making a fringe hardline Protestant statement. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"article gets renamed on the spot with no controversy even if the Google count hasn't yet caught up" I think you are making the assumption that one has to see Google counts to decide on common usage. In the case of the Pope, television and radio stations such as the BBC will broadcast the information (Reuters and the other wire services pride themselves with being the first reliable source to confirm such things). Only if those reliable sources disagree or there are not enough published sources to draw a conclusion would there been a need to hesitate, and in the case of less well known entities and people, a name change may not make the news services, or the news services my not give a clear indication which name will be used and a RM would be necessary. For those who may not have noticed it, a recent example that was mentioned on this talk page is the naming of stadia (see above Sponsors and "naming rights"). -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google counts are frequently brought up in RMs as though they determine all. But the term is also useful for the more general sum of the sources. The point is that even when there is no dispute over what the new name is the sources aren't all immediately using it from that moment onwards, whether due to delay or unfamiliarity, but we haven't waited and faffed about with bureaucracy, instead we've followed common sense and standard practice to update the article immediately. Some of this issue is effectively down to "common name" vs common practice. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of "most common"

Also, we should also probably tighten up the language with "fairly common." As I interpret it, "fairly common" casts a wide net - you could have half a dozen "fairly common" names for a subject. I suggest we change "fairly common" to "common" or "highly common." That would avoid us having to give credence to outlandish names that receive only niche media coverage. In the most current case, "Chelsea Manning" is a "highly common" way to refer to the subject, whether or not it is the "most common" - so the case is still covered. I think tightening up the standards for acceptable alternatives would keep this under control. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the most commonly used name in reliable sources has problems then why invent our own term? I can see this running into problems and would recommend going with a source used 2nd most often in reliable sources if there is one at least as a first option as long as it is WP:N, ect.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, we're not inventing our own term. We're just using other names that are still very common to avoid problematic names (actually, that's a thing that The policy already discusses), and giving examples of what those problematic names might be. In fact, because of the way the policy is written, still demanding "a" common name, just not "the" common name, if we're running into WP:N issues, that implies we can't use whatever name we've decided to replace the problematic name with. Moreover, we're not required to replace problematic names if there is simply no common alternative to them; we're only required to do so if there IS a reasonably common alternative to them. Cam94509 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That could work, but what if the second most common is a longshot? That is, if the first most common is 99% of usage and the second is just 1%. We could say "you can use the second most common name, if it is highly common." Something to that effect. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I agree that for article names we should probably only consider the two most common names. Once we start considering third most common and fourth most common names it becomes kind of arbitrary and could go in unexpected directions. I do wonder if we can definitively assess the ranking of different names.. sometimes it's a tossup. We could say, "among two names, both of which are highly common" -- that way we wouldn't have to choose which is most common and which is second, because sometimes it's unclear (as with Private Manning). CaseyPenk (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't agree. I think we should be allowed consider any name that is both commonly used and broadly recognizable when we must replace the most common name.Cam94509 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking about that after I wrote what I did. There are probably five different ways to refer to Bill Clinton (middle name or not, President or not, etc.) So limiting to just two doesn't quite work. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay per Obi then a third or forth option can be there, I just think that us naming the thing should be last resort. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that we should NEVER name the thing our self. Cam94509 (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen this done before but when it comes to controversial titles this may not be a good idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with "most common" is that it is also not a purely objective question, because you would have to do a very careful search of *all* reliable sources discussing a topic to make sure you've determined the "most" common name. Indeed, my own feeling is that you need to have an order of magnitude difference, across a wide sample of sources, ideally chosen randomly and in advance of any searching, to be truly sure that you've found the most common. A difference of 2x or even 5x in sources could simply indicate bias in selection of sources. Thus, 2nd most often (or even "most" often) is not something we can always mathematically determine, except in rare cases where there's a clear winner, a clear second place, and then the rest of the field.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, rankings are rather arbitrary and can stray into POV. Regardless and separate from what we're doing here (although we can consider it in the same breath), the phrase "most common" as it currently stands in the policy is not very helpful. There's no definitive "most common" name for some subjects, such as Private Manning. So I'd recommend we discuss that. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft, I didn't realize which section I was in for any of my comments in this section. Please take any of my comments here with a grain of salt. I need to be more careful with my editing. I'm embarrassing myself repeatedly. Cam94509 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I divided up the section after the comments had been made because it was veering off from the original topic. Sorry for the confusion. I think you put your comments in the right place. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. OK. *headdesk*. Fair enough, I'm in the clear, then. Cam94509 (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the big deal?

We're talking about the title of the article here, that's all. The masses of discussion about anyone who changes their name, and how WP responds to that need for change, has become overblown and a subject of the wider media in itself. People, we have #REDIRECT [[othername]]! That is all that matters to readers trying to find an article here. Frankly, it doesn't matter what we call the article, it will still be found because of redirects and, truly, it is no overhead on the WP servers to have a redirect in place. And the reader doesn't see any delay in presentation of the page. So we're back to arguing about why such a choice of title should matter.

On the performer front, how about Moya Brennan, or Máire Ní Bhraonáin, or even Máire Brennan? She only changed her name legally in 2009 yet the article recognised this way back. So, clearly, legality shouldn't be the issue here, indeed many countries either have no mechanism for 'legal' name change nor requirement for such. Just using 'a name' is sufficient.

In the case of Chelsea Manning (as against all the other trans people we've happily changed the title of once they've announced it) it seems to be some transphobia alongside the desire of some to punish her in any way they can because of perceived espionage. In the case of Yusuf Islam it could be argued (and I have) that it is Islamophobia that WP are refusing to recognise the name he has used for 35 years, though having Cassius Clay as a redirect to Muhammad Ali doesn't seem to bother anyone even though he became famous first under the former name.

So let's not lose sleep over the title, but concentrate on what matters: the content. If someone wants another name let us be nice and let them have it. We'll always have redirects. --AlisonW (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AlisonW, the fact that you spend so much time arguing for particular positions on what the article titles should be suggests that you already know the answer to your own question. If, as your rhetorical question suggests, article titles are no big deal, then you should not care what title is chosen. But clearly you do care, so at the very least you must admit that it is a little bit of a deal. 99.192.51.153 (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
"That is all that matters to readers trying to find an article here. Frankly, it doesn't matter what we call the article, it will still be found because of redirects and, truly, it is no overhead on the WP servers to have a redirect in place. And the reader doesn't see any delay in presentation of the page. So we're back to arguing about why such a choice of title should matter." This argument can be applied to either side of the argument, and in fact the reason COMMONNAME was developed is because it is presumably the COMMONNAME that is most in the interest of the reader.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, even the discussion regarding transgender people is rooted in WP:COMMONNAME. Personally, I know who Cat Stevens and Muhammad Ali are, but I've only heard Yusuf Islam on Wikipedia and I've only heard Cassius Clay from Wikipedia and because I visited a museum where he was covered. So the policy passes the sanity check in those two cases. In cases of transgender individuals I'm not sure which name is correct (my intuitions are less clear, in part because I know so little of transgender matters), which is why I'm seeking revision to policy - so we can be more clear and precise. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to spread knowledge. If it can teach us that Cat Stevens name is now Yusuf Islam (I had no idea of this before either) then that is a good thing isn't it? --Space simian (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but WP:NOTADVOCATE. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. You hear about Cat Stevens because he is notable. You go to Wikipedia and find an article about him and learn that he eventually changed his name to Yusuf Islam. However, if you go to Wikipedia and type in Cat Stevens and get taken to an article titled Yusuf Islam, your first thought is that you are in the wrong place. DPRoberts534 (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe article titles are not a big deal, I suggest you propose demoting this policy (Wikipedia:Article titles) to a guideline or even an essay. But I think that many people take this matter very seriously. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Defer to my preferred title or else it means you're a bigot," flies in the face of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The discussion should be about the arguments in favor of each proposal. Goading people into flamewars would be very bad for Wikipedia. We can have a really good discussion on the merits of the arguments if we try. The difference between the naming of Muhammad Ali and Cat Stevens (and Mike Tyson rather than Malik Abdul Aziz) seem to me to reflect editors actually trying to thoughtfully engage naming criteria. Engaging those arguments is more effective strategy to build consensus for change than labeling those who disagree as bigots. --JamesAM (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A reminder

I met a traveler from an antique land 
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone 
Stand in the desert... Near them, on the sand, 
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown, 
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, 
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read 
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, 
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed; 
And on the pedestal these words appear: 
My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings, 
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! 
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare 
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borrow that from yoda's wisdom? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, care to explain why we are being reminded that even great works inevitably return to dust? Cam94509 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find an essay on WP:NIHILISM, but apparently we don't think about that question much. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it useful to read this poem, anytime I'm engaged in some epic thing, to remind myself that "this too shall pass"; something you think is so incredibly important, will be, in the fullness of time, just more sand in the desert.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It's actually one of my favorite poems (or at least, one of the few that I both recognize and recognize the meaning of) I just wasn't quite sure what you were trying to get across. Cam94509 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general you're probably right, although for transgender people and possibly others (such as religious converts) I think this can be a very, very important issue that we need to get right. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a nice sound-bite, but it's simply not true. Qworty brutalized BLPs of writers he didnt' like for years, without sanction, and the cleanup effort to undo what Qworty did is still going on, at a snails-pace. I think people are confusing our role with the role of the media. Ultimately, it may be important to a trans person what the NY Times calls them, but it's probably more important how people address them to their face. If our article title (just the title!) is "wrong" for a month or 2 months or 6 months, that doesn't even rank at the BOTTOM of the list of bad shit that has been perpetrated against BLPs in the past. As another example, Amanda Filipacchi caused a major media shitstorm when she accused wikipedia of being sexist because we ghettoized women into categories - and guess what? There are still by my estimate tens of thousands of bios which are categorized in ways which the media/twitterverse called "sexist". But everyone moved on to a new debate. Trust me - this too shall pass...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who would be harmed, or even if no one would be harmed, our policy is still vague. Most perceptibly, "and the most common has problems." That vagueness will lead us to re-hash the Manning debate if we don't figure it out. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "most commonly used" isn't something that can be quantified. The real cause of the "Manning debate" was that people didn't follow the normal procedure for name changes (we first note the change in the text... then, once more sources use the new name, we propose changing the title). Instead, people tried to force a change. Within seconds of Manning's announcement, people rushed to Wikipedia and changed the title (and every "he" to "she"). This set off a backlash, which led to a counter backlash, etc. If those wanting the change had been willing to wait (even a few days) for the sources to catch up to reality, the entire thing could have been avoided. Those who desired the change could have pointed to sources and made a reasonable argument that the COMMONNAME had changed (or at least was in the process of changing) to "Chelsea".
There is no need to change our policies... they work. It's just that sometimes they intentionally work slowly and deliberately. Blueboar (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different take (on the patience issue):
  • Assuming good faith, the intial change was because people had a sincere and colorable BLP concern. If there were no BLP concern, it would have quickly reverted back with a SNOW.
  • There was a backlash against the move, but it was in the form of: "how can you possibly say there is a BLP concern -- your destroying the wiki."
  • That led to a backlash of "how can you possibly be so insensitive - your deliberately hurting someone"
So,
  • Instead, why wasn't the response to the move: "Ok, I see your sincere concern, but in balancing the issues and policies the old name still works, and here's why . . . but there is no imminent danger of BLP harm, with the new title, so lets discuss it, until we can work it out -- in the meantime we can see how the world changes.
  • So, the call for patience would then be on the move-back side, but no one was going to possibly be harmed in the meantime -- and the worst would be a days at the new title and the article would not be perfect (but most articles aren't perfect). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, "but no one was going to possibly be harmed in the meantime" -- I agree, but some vocal editors expressed the opinion that it would cause BLP damage (what damage, exactly, it would cause, I'm not sure). Even Jimbo, who has been adamantly supportive of the Chelsea title, admitted that there was no harm incoming. No one's going to die over the page title. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made myself clear. There was a sincere concern that the old title would cause harm. So, leave it at the new title, while that is worked out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By old title I assume you mean Bradley. In which case, most of us agreed there was no substantive harm done with Bradley. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But we can't reach that overall conclusion, at the beginning of the discussion. At the beginning of the discussion, we seek to avoid the possible harm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general, yes, but editors (at least myself) don't typically think about the title being the most harmful aspect (unless it's an egregious title that they've never used, such as "fdsfdsgdf" (random keyboard typing). And I think different editors have different views on using BLP as a trump card -- I think all but obvious BLP complaints have to be deliberate and well thought out. I don't think a knee jerk reaction is generally necessary. If it were, I would go off blanking articles about topics I find offensive the minute I stumbled upon them. We will cause some offense in simply relaying what reliable sources report. That's the nasty thing about the sources sometimes. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's what discussion is for, to think about things we have not thought about. It's most unlikely that anyone would get away with blanking non-living biographical material at all - or doing so willy-nilly with any material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think we need to give the Manning title topic a bit of breathing room, and come back to it in a month as advised by the closing admins. Which is really about that article and not this policy, but it's good guidance in general. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the policy issue is what can we do with policy where someone makes a substantive BLP concern issue edit - and then everyone (meaning all of experienced editors, incl. admins) knows what to do and expect - at the start. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused - the article stayed at Chelsea during the discussion. The discussion didnt reach consensus to move, so the default was to revert back to the original title. Now sources are changing, even about 5 by my count today, so I'm guessing be end of sept there will be a clear majority for Chelsea.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right 1) my policy concern is with the next blow-up months in the future and not with the past or this article -- this is after-action analysis; 2) there was allot of angst/anger/whatever that the article, during the discussion, stayed as you describe - but there wouldn't have been if everyone just knew, yah that's what we do, as a matter of process, in this type of situation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seemed sort of ridiculous to claim BLP emergency when every news agency in the world was still using Bradley. --Space simian (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But "seemed sort of" needs to be viewed in light of 'could be wrong about that.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, which is why the page remained at 'Chelsea Manning' and editors instead asked why it was a BLP emergency, when it became clear it was not people got upset. More so when people discovered that the involved admins were friends in the meat world and that at least one of them were giving interviews to the media (that mischaracterized the discussion btw).--Space simian (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But if procedurally, everyone understood "became clear" is an overall conclusion that will be determined at the summing up, then they can just relax and make their arguments about that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still see three problems:

  • If people belive Wikipedia can be taken advantage of to promote a cause, even if noble, it undermine Wikipedia's credibility as a neutral encyclopedia.
  • The fact that Manning's bio was turned into a circus in order to promote a cause is also a BLP concern, even if we support the cause, taking advantage of a living persons biography that way is neither responsible nor respectful.
  • If the BLP policy is abused as a trump card the next time, when there really is a BLP emergency, Wikipedia might not react as fast and determined as it should.

--Space simian (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Promote a cause is a rather broad claim to make (except in the 'everything is a cause' sense), when the claim is psychological harm to a living person. Wikipedia's cause, of attempting to write a tertiary source (often imperfectly -- how could it not be) in real time is balanced against that potential for harm.
  • The abuse of policy/abuse of person issues need to be addressed with tact and seriousness of consideration, so as not to become a circus.
  • What trumps what is a matter that is determined overall at the end of the discussion -- the provisional editorial position on BLP issues, in the meantime should be 'do no harm' -- and in discussion soberly take a living person's 'human dignity into account.' (from the Foundation Resolution)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

The debate above has been helpful in hammering out some of the outlines of what would make sense. It seems that editors generally favor a change that would clarify the existing policy without carving out highly-specific exceptions for particular situations.

As such, I propose changing the following statement:

When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

To this:

When there are multiple common names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and one of those names has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose one of the other names. Examples of names that have problems include, but are not limited to:

  • Former personal names, when the subject has stated a preference for a new name (for example, Cassius Clay, the former name of Muhammad Ali)
  • Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams that have had their names officially changed by their owners (for example, St. John's Redmen, the former name of the St. John's Red Storm)
  • Names that have become used less frequently because they are widely considered offensive (for example, negerboll, another name for chokladboll)

Thoughts? CaseyPenk (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Updated 21:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC). Updated 21:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC). Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than saying "it is perfectly reasonable", I would say "it is permissible", or perhaps even "it may be preferable". bd2412 T 21:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward "it is permissible," because it is more precise (permission is a much more precise concept than reasonableness) and because it is neutral ("preferable" starts down the slippery slope toward "required," and I don't think "may" is a good word to include in policy that's supposed to be more-or-less definitive). Great suggestion, and I've made the change in the proposed wording. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although, just making it permissible does not suggest that we should use it. It seems like at least some editors want to favor the name-without-problems. Should we favor it or just make it one of the options? I see the value in saying "may be preferable," because it nudges toward the names that are less problematic, and that's sort of the goal. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could say both - "it is permissible, and may be preferable, to choose one of the other names". The "and" makes it clear that it is not required. bd2412 T 21:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a good change to me; I have no particular preference over the exact wording of "permissible" versus "preferable" etc. —me_and 21:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of issues.
  • Keeping in "fairly" common is important. While it doesn't imply a hidebound rule, it should help avoid the situation where a person argues that whereas a purportedly "problematic" name has 14,000 appearances in reliable source, the target has 100, so it's also "common". This should help foster some measure of proportionality to parsing the section.
  • It should be fairly common "in reliable sources", with reliable source possibly linked.
  • We should consider adding (as we already have for changes of organizations names): "Common sense can be applied – if a person changes his or her name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change."
  • Very minor nit: pejorative should be singular, i.e., not "pejoratives".
--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions. I think "fairly common" is a weaker standard than "common." "Fairly common" could include almost anything (even things with a few hundred hits). Can you think of any language that's more demanding, such as "highly common" but not quite that extreme? Maybe considerably common, or significantly common?
WP:COMMONNAME already states that "common" means "common in reliable sources," so we don't need to repeat that here. I pulled out just the relevant phrase but when you look at it in context it's clear what "common" means.
We already do consider name changes as special - the policy already states "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."
Changed that. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With "fairly", what I'm getting at is proportionality. Maybe we need to imply it (or directly state it) in a different way, but that example I gave, of 14,000 verses 100, begs to be resolved by something in the language. As to repeating "in reliable sources", we have a constant problem with people not understanding this and it should be reiterated ad nauseum.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is clunky, but this phrasing is much more specific about what "common" means, removing any need to guess: "When a large number of reliable sources refer to a subject using a given name, but that name has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose a different name also used by a large number of reliable sources." CaseyPenk (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had to reread what you typed two times as it is a bit confusing:

"When there are several names for a subject, all of them common, and one of the names has problems (Which one?), it is permissible, and may be preferable, to choose one of the other names....."

Just think it should be reworded somehow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is wordy. Could you clarify exactly what phrases you find to be particularly confusing? It sounds like "one of the names has problems" may not be completely clear at first? CaseyPenk (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "several names for a subject, all of them common" to "multiple common names for a subject." What do you think? CaseyPenk (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how about: "When there are several common names for a subject and one of the most common names has problems it is permissible, and may be preferable, to choose one of the other names....." ? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple works too I think "and one of the most common names has problems" should be added though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smoother wording. I am concerned about the loss of precision by saying "common names" rather than "fairly common" or some qualifier like that. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say "multiple" because multiple means 2+ whereas several might imply 3+. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, why do you prefer "one of the most common names has problems" to "one of the names has problems"? CaseyPenk (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple is fine then =). I just put up an example as I feel the wording "and one of the names has problems" should be clarified is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, understandable. The policy should be as precise and clear as possible. Thank you for the feedback. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, hopefully at least something can be put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgekid87, I clarified the wording at the beginning of the sentence and tested out changing "one of the most common names has problems" to "one of those names has problems." The "those" should help with clarity, and it avoids us having to repeat "more/most common," but I realize it still might not be totally clear. I'm trying to make the wording as smooth and non-redundant as possible but also make it very obvious what we're trying to say. Let me know what you think. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have some quibbles and squabbles. First, the word "names" appears in both bullet points, yet in the first it seems clear it is referring only to names of people and in the second only to names of non-people. It might be better to say "personal names" in the first bullet to make it clear.

Second, "the subject has indicated preference". Shouldn't that be "indicated a preference"?

Third, the very act of changing one's name is to indicate that the new name is preferred. No one changes their name and then says "keep using the old name". So I would want to strengthen the claim to say something like "Former names, when the subject has stated a preference that the former name not be used".

Fourth, "Names widely considered to be pejorative" is not strong enough. I would phrase it like this: "Names that were officially changed or that have become used less frequently because they are widely considered to be pejorative".

Fifth, WP:COMMONNAME offers a list of 14 different examples to illustrate what it is saying. I think that one or two examples for each bullet would help. Muhammad Ali might be a good example for bullet point 1. St. John's Red Storm and Nanking Massacre might be good examples of the two parts I have suggested for bullet 2. 99.192.74.67 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]

"Officially" sounds a bit too close to WP:OFFICIAL (i.e. legally changed). It may be a bit wordier, but something more like "where an individual has announced a change of their name". bd2412 T 01:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1, changed to "personal names" Many entities can change their name and state a preference, such as stadiums, events, etc. (although such entities cannot voice an opinion)
2, changed
3, changed There are cases in which the subject does not strongly prefer one side or the other - for example, with Private Manning, Chelsea's lawyer said "Bradley" would still be used, although Manning prefers to be known as "Chelsea." Hence, the criteria that the subject prefers the new name, even if they don't completely disavow the old one.
4 -- how do you determine an "official" name? What if the subject has no official name, as in the Nanking Massacre?
5 -- this is the one that presents some difficulties. Including examples would seem to suggest that we changed those article names specifically because of this policy, when in fact those titles predated this policy and were probably more common in reliable sources anyways. The Nanking Massacre one basically makes sense, but again, who says the Rape of Nanjing name was used less frequently because it was a pejorative? There are probably a multitude of reasons for historians moving away from the Rape term. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I separated name changes out from becoming-used-less-often-because-pejorative. They seem like two clear-cut, well-defined cases. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) No, entities like schools, buildings, and even sports teams cannot state a preference, nor are they the kinds of things that can have a preference, but wait for point 4 for more on this....
(2) :-)
(3) Ok
(4) When I say "names that were officially changed" I am thinking of schools, buildings, and sports teams. These things do not change their own names. Someone in an official position to name them does it. So the University administration at St. John's were the people who officially changed the sports teams' name. The "or that have become used less frequently" was meant for things that do not have an official name beyond what we happen to call it, like the Nanking Massacre.
(5) "Including examples would seem to suggest that we changed those article names specifically because of this policy" - I disagree. Re-read the text you are proposing. It says nothing about "changing" the name of articles. Your proposal is about how to name articles in the first place. It certainly will have consequences for cases where a change is proposed, but that is not what the text reads. Furthermore, it must read this way (as opposed to be about changes) because we want to cover cases where an article is being created for the first time as well. As for the specific Nanking example, I think it is a good one, but if you think there is some doubt that the name is less used because it might offend, then a different example could be used.. 99.192.74.67 (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Thanks to Space simian above, we already have an alternative example to Nanking. The Swedish chokladboll used to be called "negerboll", but, according to it's Wikipedia page, "whether or not negerboll is the appropriate term has been the subject of media debate". 99.192.74.67 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
1 and 4, you're correct that entities cannot change their own names. I separated personal name changes from entity name as two different bullet points, because they're two separate concepts and pejorative names are still a third.
5, good point. I do think the examples help clarify what we're trying to say. I came up with a few examples I've heard from the debate over the past few days. Good idea.
What do you think about the proposal now? CaseyPenk (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some names are controversial, such as Octo-mom, even if they are not necessarily used less frequently. I think pejoratives can be "problematic" regardless of whether they're in style or not. We still have to go by reliable sources, so it's not like we would make up some contrived name for Octo-mom. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Star Wars Kid is another good example. It is a nickname bestowed by society, and on record as being offensive to the subject, whose real name has been verifiably reported. It is not inherently pejorative, but its use with respect to this subject is. bd2412 T 02:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I think if we had a page on the actor himself, we would call the page "Ghyslain Raza." But we don't, so we're off the hook from deciding. (: CaseyPenk (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CaseyPenk, I think it looks good, but I am not sure MWP is a good example. I believe he is on record (like Cat Stevens is) saying he has no problem with people using the old name. Ali is a much stronger example because he did call it his "slave name". BD2412, SWK might be a good candidate for a title change under this proposal, but is not a good example to use for the policy because, in fact, the article does bear the potentially pejorative name, so does not show an example of using something else. 99.192.74.67 (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Yes, that is what I meant it as - an example of something that should be changed under this proposed policy. bd2412 T 02:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would we really want to retitle the SWK article? Since the article is about the video, which had only one common name. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are right. It is not a bio page about Ghyslain Raza, if it was SWK would be a horrible title indeed, but since it is about the video I do not think it has to be changed.--Space simian (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the "slave name" part makes it a very fitting example. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Octo-mom" might be a better example. It is easier to understand since it is in English and more universal. 'Chokladboll' has been criticised for being an expression of "political correctness" by some which avoiding "octo-mom" can't be accused of (I would think, I'm not always sure what people mean when they talk about political correctness though?).--Space simian (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording surrounding pejoratives, because really that case is about any name that causes offense (e.g. negerboll). Some names (e.g. Octo-mom) are not technically pejoratives but are still widely considered offensive. Thoughts? CaseyPenk (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My current thoughts are that this looks pretty good so far, but I do have one objection: I'd very much like to make sure that we don't run into the problems we ran into that caused us to start this discussion again, so I'd like to add a second example for name changes where the person changing their name is a trans person. Maybe I'm over thinking things, but I'd like to make it explicitly clear that trans peoples name changes should be affected by this, too, that way we can avoid firestorms like the one that happened at Bradley Manning. Am I over thinking things, or is this a reasonable thought? Cam94509 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me, for two very basic reasons: (1) It's a good move - it helps clarify the policy for future cases, which will undoubtedly occur and (2) It's not a bad move - it is one in a list of examples and as such is not an exception to policy. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Why are we changing a policy that works based on one event? We don't need to be ahead of what the reliable sources are stating. Bradley will likely change to Chelsea due to the move of the sources. GregJackP Boomer! 05:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're not being ahead of all of the reliable sources, we're just not waiting until a majority of them to catch up before we follow the front runners in cases where people would stand to be hurt if we don't. Also, we're not really changing policy at this point as much as we are clarifying existing text in a policy to make a line from the text of the policy ultimately not completely useless. Cam94509 (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the proposal, each name under consideration must be "used frequently in reliable sources," so if we're 'following the front runners' that just means we're following a sizable portion (say, 40%), of the reliable sources. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
40% is actually way to high. I'd think 10% would be sufficient. (Because the most common name may not even be the name used by 40% of the population.) Cam94509 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, we're not renegotiating the threshold at which a name becomes common -- that's already determined in WP:COMMONNAME and won't change. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I just wanted to make sure that nobody got the impression that 40% was some kind of magic number. Cam94509 (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, let's just go with 42%. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Seems like a pretty good answer for a lot of difficult questions, actually. If I only I knew what they were... Cam94509 (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
42 is a number commonly used as a joke. I was hinting that any number is arbitrary and that we should therefore not decide on a threshold. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Clarifying existing text" and using a figure of 40%, much less 10% is not a change? Hardly. It is a drastic change to the existing policy, as evidenced by the statement that "we're just not waiting...." The existing policy states "usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources" and this proposal purports to change that to a minority of sources. If we used the figure of 10%, we would have to change Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam. It requires that editors use a WP:CRYSTALBALL since we would be "waiting until a majority of them to catch up...." What is being proposed will have unintended consequences that may be detrimental to the project. We should not change the policy. GregJackP Boomer! 10:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We were bandying about figures based on our personal impressions -- none of the figures are official, and we're not going to specify a threshold. There is no threshold and we're not making one. As always, different editors will interpret the threshold differently. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it's a stretch to call it a policy change. It's a clarification of the existing policy. The current policy already suggests consideration of alternatives to problematic names -- it just doesn't specify what kinds of names are problematic. This proposal makes the policy less ambiguous so editors know how to apply it (and aren't left scratching their heads as they were in the Manning debate).
Furthermore, this isn't just one situation -- the examples in the proposal show that this question comes up in many other articles. The transgender-specific bit was just suggested; all the other wording involves more general cases. And nor is the transgender question a one-off deal -- there will be more articles about transgender people, and we will have to struggle through the same issues if we don't have clear policy. As new situations come up the nuances of our policy needs to reflect our best practices. The core ideas stay the same, but we explain how the policy is applicable in different domains.
When I look back on the Manning debate, I am frustrated for a number of reasons. Among them: we could have avoided the entire debate and spared many hours and hard feelings if we had simply clarified what we already have on the books. I'm not too beat up about it, though: we have an opportunity here. Hindsight is 20/20, which is why I for one want to be proactive given the lessons we've learned. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully our reasoning makes sense, GregJackP. Let us know what you think. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, this isn't a clarification, it is a major change that is unwarranted, unwise, and unneeded. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 10:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When adding such examples that singles out specific groups it is important to make sure the exception/rule itself can not be seen as pejorative (now or in the future) which often end up to be the case even if well intended.--Space simian (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am against this change for several reasons. "and one of those names has problems" is the most useful wording for a policy. Guidance for what problems are should reside in the naming conventions (At guidelines).
In general that's true, but we don't have naming conventions for some of these topics (such as LGBT people). There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) but that's all I've seen. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is because comments like "stated a preference for a new name" inevitably lead to the question "why just new names"? This leads us back to the "official name" verses common name argument. There is no "problem" with "new names" and such changes are covered by common usage and the sentence about that starts " If the name of a person, ... changes, then more weight ...". "Names of entities ... had their names officially changed by their owners". No it depends on several things and there is no bias in favour of the official name. Take for example Burma and Ivory Coast to name two obvious examples which would be affected by this proposed change. "widely considered offensive" this is affected by ENGVAR as well as a vocal minorities for political correctness reasons. If a word is becoming used less frequently, for whatever reason, then it is usual to go with the more modern usage (see for example the name of European Continental kings). In the case of the third example "chokladboll" (something I had never heard of until read here) of how does one know that is derived from the name of a person from Niger and not directly from the Latin word for the colour? How does one know that the name widely offensive (as probably like me most have never heard or it)? Nothing in the example article indicates it naming origin and the example the Met and nitty gritty should be a cautionary tail,[1]. Slang word usage changes see for example the fuss of the use of gay to mean naff,[2] (which is a sort of circle[3]). The use of the word fag in London is not about the same thing as the use of the word fag in New York and what is a common insult in one country may not be the common insult in another. -- PBS (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the 'negerboll' example was that it was not meant or considered offensive but that it was obvious to most that it could be perceived that way and that there was not really any good reason for not using 'chokladboll' instead. It might not be an ideal example since no-one outside of Sweden is likely to be familiar with the debate, the pastry or realise how Swedens history and culture (e.g. not many immigrants from Africa) is different from e.g. the USA.--Space simian (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main change that I would be comfortable with is something along the lines of the following:
  1. You have established use of a second name in reliable sources, though this name is for now less common, even in sources *after* the new name was announced (if it was more common, you could just appeal to commonname). You must be able to make a reasonable argument that the secondary name has received at least 10% of the frequency of the "primary" common name in reliable sources.
  2. The subject or owner of the thing in question has publicly stated that this is a new name for this thing (the name could be brand new, or an old name the subject is reverting to)
  3. The subject or owner of the thing in question has publicly asked the media to cease using the old name (or has informed of this preference via OTPS email)
  4. If those conditions are met, the second/new name could be used as the title instead.
Note that, per these conditions, both Burma and Ivory Coast would be moved to Myanmar and Cote d'Ivoire, and of course Bradley would become Chelsea, and Cat Stevens would move to Yusuf, and Republic of Ireland would move to Ireland. I note that most of those discussions were large, contentious discussions, so changing a policy in a way that would allow those to be moved would cause a lot of angst. But such criteria above are probably the only way to do so neutrally, and without getting into a relative-ranking of harm - instead we just trust the subject's own judgement. This of course becomes problematic when we're referring to dead people, who can't express a preference, in which case perhaps we would look at the preference of their estate? What about long-dead people, who have no estate or living relatives? Anyway, it's not perfect, but it's a start. Unfortunately, I'm afraid such changes would not get broad consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick responses to some of the contributions since I last checked in. First, Cam94509: "I'd like to add a second example for name changes where the person changing their name is a trans person." I disagree. One of the strengths, as I see if, of the proposed revision is that it clearly does cover such a case while pointing out through the Ali example that the issue is not so narrow. By putting in an example of a transgender person it opens the revision to the accusation that it was only made to address this one particular case. A specific reference to a transgender person is not needed.

Second, PBS: "why just new names?" This is a good question. It need not be new for the person to state a preference for it. For example, a woman who took her husband's name when getting married, but then has a nasty divorce and wants to go back to her former name (eg; Roseanne Barr, who became Roseanne Arnold then went back to Barr). So maybe "when the subject has stated a preference for a new name" could be reworded as "when the subject has been known by more than one name and has stated a preference for one of them".

Third, Space simian: Octomon vs the Chokladboll - Both are good examples, but Chokladboll is better since there is evidence that people have used the term less often because of concerns that it is offensive, which is ideal as an example. I am not sure if anyone has really stopped using "Octomom" because it is thought to be pejorative. But also, "Octomom" is better covered by bullet point one, since whether or not she is offended by the name might be the relevant question. If she likes the name, then there is no problem with using it. It is also a better example to use since it fully illustrates the idea that some things have names without having an "official" name. About the worry that "chokladboll" is a peculiarly Swedish example that many might not know about is also not a problem. The example provides a link people can follow to learn why it is a good example and by having one non-English example it emphasizes the scope of the possible problem. So I like chokladboll as an example. 99.192.48.26 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]

"and the most common has problems" - by whose decision does it "[have] problems" though? I'd suggest that because redirects can all lead to Rome then we should put the article at the one *chosen/preferred by the subject of the article* (where we are in BLP areas. Countries and buildings are a different matter.) WP is here to educate and inform, not to record ancient historical abuses, indeed 'youngsters' learning in these threads that Ali was as world-wide famous under his former name as he is now have been educated in that very fact. Let's be nice to the people who are subjects of our articles and call them what they want to be called - they rarely asked for the publicity and we should be friendly to our source material. --AlisonW (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, would you support moving Anders Behring Breivik to Commander Breivik? He has asked that he be addressed in that fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because we don't include titles in article names (eg Queen X / King Y/ Sir Z) --AlisonW (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AlisonW -- Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? Charles, Prince of Wales? CaseyPenk (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um... yeah. Even Queen_Victoria raised her royal eyebrows at that one. In any case, who cares? We call some guy "Metta World Peace" - so why not "Commander Kenobi"? Check this one - a GITMO guard, who converted, and renamed himself as Mustafa Abdullah - but guess where his article sits? Terry Holdbrooks! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - if we just go by subject's preference and ignore RS usage, then why *not* countries? Why not building? Disasters? And criminals - my god, they would have a field day! Here's a recent one: [Son of Sam]] aka David Berkowitz has apparently been reborn, and would now like to be called Son of Hope - should we move his article? His conversion happened in 1987, so I guess Wikipedia is being a jerk for, um, ~26 years here? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna bang the "specific small policies" drum again here. If instead of "legislating" broadly and catching the unintended, unanticipated consequences as they come up, legislate narrowly; when a new group comes up that may merit special consideration of a similar kind, run the legislation process again. Would support "people making a relgious conversion that publically reject their old name" as an initial category though. We can use our brains well enough to recognise the case of "my real name Jesus Christ". Chris Smowton (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) "by whose decision does it '[have] problems' though?" - By the collected wisdom of Wikipedia editors. That's the only way it ever has worked and the only way it can work. If someone sees a problem, they mention it, and then there is discussion to determine how big a problem it is. "Let's be nice to the people who are subjects of our articles and call them what they want to be called" Sometimes famous people have serious mental health issues. Comic actor Tony Rosato was institutionalized because of a condition that caused him to believe that his wife and child were abducted and replaced by impostors. David Berkowitz thought a dog ordered him to kill woman. Jim Jones claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus. So what if a notable person publicly declares "I am Jesus Christ returned to earth. Please use that name to address me"? It would seem reasonable not to rename the article in such a case.
If crazy people don't worry you, what about funny people? Stephen Colbert likes to periodically fuck with Wikipedia, getting viewers to change the page for "Reality" to say "Reality has become a commodity" and has told people to solve the problem of elephants becoming extinct by just changing the number that the Wikipedia page says. Richard Herring in his podcasts sometimes asks guests to verify facts listed on their Wikipedia pages as "citation needed". He then tells people to cite the podcast for the information, which some people have done. Comedians like to mess with Wikipedia and make fun of it. So all you have to do is tell them that we have to name a page with whatever name they say they want us to you and next thing you know some comedian will declare that his new name is "Wikipedia is a pile of shit" and he wants to be addressed accordingly. If we are forced with no editorial oversight to accept that (and then change it back a month later when he has had his fun) we set ourselves up for problems.
The simple fact is that it is very rare right now (including for transgendered people) for Wikipedia to have article titles that are not the name the subject wishes. Other than Manning, is there any other? And that one will be changed soon in the usual way. Metta World Peace's article was still called "Ron Artest" for a month after he changed names, too. That's not an unusual or unreasonable time frame. 99.192.48.26 (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
I would be surprised to see reliable sources such as major media outlets referring to a notable person as "Jesus Christ returned to Earth", if that person declared it. By contrast, reliable sources now refer almost exclusively to Muhammad Ali, Metta World Peace, and Chaz Bono. We can prevent the kinds of problems that comedians like to engender by relying on usages actually adopted in some proportion of reliable sources, even if those sources are split. By the way, Chelsea Manning is not the only subject not referred to by their preferred nomenclature in their Wikipedia title; see Yusuf Islam (a.k.a. Cat Stevens) and Snoop Lion (a.k.a. Snoop Dogg). bd2412 T 18:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, you are agreeing with me. So long as we have some editorial oversight on names, we don't have to worry about people who have mental health problems or comedians (is that two different groups? :-) That's my point. AlisonW had recommended a simple "use the name they say they want" policy. That way leads madness. As for Yusuf and Snoop Lion, I know that Yusuf has said he is Ok with people using "Cat Stevens" and I have seen Snoop interviewed since the name change and he did not seem to indicate that what name people used was a big deal for him either. So far as I know Manning is the only person who does not want the current Wikipedia page name used. 99.192.48.26 (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
In that case, yes, I am entirely agreeing with you. bd2412 T 18:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, per Space Simian, it would be difficult to do this in a manner that would be inoffensive, and you think the proposal is stronger the way it is currently written, I'm perfectly willing to go along with the current proposal. I'm willing to support a consensus that follows from the current text, given that it almost certainly does apply to trans people and is a probably a good policy in general. Cam94509 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The vernacular is always preferable as it is the most recognizable form. Self censorship is still censorship. The test of what title to use is simple; What do the preponderance of sources call the topic in question? Yes, give more weight to recent sources. Problem solved without a lot of touchy feely tea sessions or singing kumbaya around the camp fire.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that. There was certainly a point at which Muhammad Ali was the most recognizable form, while a preponderance of sources were still using Cassius Clay. bd2412 T 21:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was? I would like to see the evidence. The media informs the masses is rather my point. He wasn't getting "Ali" out there all by himself. Why make this complicated?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Damien Cox, ‎Gord Stellick, '67: The Maple Leafs, Their Sensational Victory, and the End of an Empire (2009), p. 189: "In March 1966, the news broke that Ballard had cut a deal with Bob Arum, the lawyer for Main Bouts Inc., to hold a heavyweight fight between Ernie Terrell and Muhammad Ali, although most media outlets declined to acknowledge Ali's Muslim choices and continued to refer to him as Cassius Clay."
Andrew B. Lewis, The Shadows of Youth: The Remarkable Journey of the Civil Rights Generation (2009), p. 230: "A few weeks later Clay adopted the Muslim name Muhammad Ali, further increasing his notoriety. The New York Times refused to recognize his new name and continued to use Cassius Clay in its articles."
Mary Cross, 100 People Who Changed 20th-Century America (2013), page 510: "In 1964, the NOI replaced Ali's birth name, Cassius Clay, with the Islamic holy name of “Muhammad Ali,” a rare honor. Several competitors and members of the press refused to recognize the new name, however."
Gail Underwood Parker, It Happened in Maine, 2nd: Remarkable Events That Shaped History (2013), p. 114: "Announcer Addie used the name Muhammad Ali, but most reporters, including radio announcer Hodges, continued to refer to him as Cassius Clay. Some, including Ali's opponents, refused to use Ali's Muslim name for years."
Carrie Golus, Muhammad Ali (2006), p. 45: "But many reporters and editors continued to refer to him as “Cassius Clay” for years afterward."
There's the evidence. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BD2412, I don't really want to debate the Cassius Clay move that wikipedia made back in 1964, but you assert "Muhammad Ali was the most recognizable form", but also recognize that the media wasn't buying it. What leads you believe MA was more recognizeable than Cassius Clay? -- (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that many in the media refused to use Ali in favor of Clay. But what was he commonly known as? Did the kids at school and the talk at the water cooler indicate a preference? I suspect the media influenced the peepul quite heavily. And it is pretty much the only thing we have to go with in any case. BTW, I wasn't being snippy and demanding you look that stuff up.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A third proposal

I was originally thinking of something along the lines of:

  • If a person change name, and both the old name and the new name is fairly common, the new name is preferred even if it is less frequently used.

That would be a rule only affecting people saying that new names are preferred but only if they have been accepted by at least some reliable sources? --Space simian (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it. Kim Novak was a huge movie star, but has not made a film in over 20 years and is out of the spotlight now. This proposal says that if Kim Novak takes her husband's last name (Malloy) that the page should change location. That seems entirely unhelpful to most readers, even with redirects. Now you might want to say that if she did this that maybe the name would not be "used", but that might only be true if you try to limit the scope of what it means for a name to be "used". If a Kim Novak fansite starts using the new name, it's being used. The fansite need not be a "reliable" source in general, because it is certainly a reliable source on the question of whether or not the name is being "used".
There has been some talk in recent discussions of the importance of Wikipedia "educating" people and how even this discussion has helped educate some people about the fact that Muhammad Ali was once famous with a different name. But I think the time has come to start educating people that article titles are not statements about what the name of a person is. As an article title, people should learn to think of "Cat Stevens" as short for "the article about the person who is most well known by the name 'Cat Stevens'". That is what a title is saying and that sentence is both undoubtedly true and cannot possibly be taken as an insult to him or anyone else to say. Even when Prince went through a phase of not using his name he was often described accurately as "the artist formerly known as Prince". To use that phrase was not to continue to name him "Prince". 99.192.91.187 (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
That was my first reaction to the Manning MR as well: "people just do not understand Wikipedia policy on title selection", I thought, countless title controversies and especially the Manning MR have illustrated that. However, as an encyclopedia Wikipedia's goal is to educate people, if people does not get it we can either try to improve peoples understanding of wikipedia policy (not likely) or we can try to improve the policy so they do. Wikipedia is here for the readers so we have to try to minimize the risk of them misunderstanding. If I have to choose between a policy that leads to 'Cassius Clay' and 'Kim Novak' or one that leads to 'Muhammad Ali' and 'Kim Malloy' I would pick the latter because it can not be misunderstood to be derogatory and therefore minimizes harm, both to the subject and to Wikipedia. (Besides, I do not think a fan site would be considered a reliable source in that case, it is the frequency of use in sources that would be relevant to the article that counts). --Space simian (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an article is to educate... but that is not the purpose of the article title. We definitely should educate our readers by noting that Kim Novak is now married and goes by the name "Kim Malloy", or that Manning has come out as Transgender and changed names in the process... but the place to educate our readers about this is in the text of the subject's bio article, not in the article title.
The purpose of a article title is not to educate... a title's purpose is threefold: 1) to distinguish one article topic from another... 2) to help readers searching for an article on a specific topic find it easily... and (to a lesser extent) 3) to allow readers and editors who are randomly surfing Wikipedia know what the article they land on is about. Novak is still best known by her maiden name. Manning is somewhat in flux (with some sources still using "Brandley" and others making the switch to "Chelsea"... my take on it is that enough sources have made the switch that we should do so as well... but the important thing is that the decision is based on what sources do, and not our own POVs on the issue.) Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we stand?

The discussion has veered off in a few different directions and I'm not sure where the sentiment actually lies. My main goal is clarify what "problems" means, however we do that. An idea I've been discussing with Obi-Wan Kenobi is that, rather than list out the problematic cases, to simply point the reader in the direction of where to find what would be problematic. We could direct the reader to the rest of the page (which covers controversial titles like Octomom) and the specific naming conventions (that cover topics such as royalty). Thoughts?

Also - there are a variety of possible ways to approach this, so I created a sandbox at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/COMMONNAME sandbox. Feel free to experiment with different wording as you see fit. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sandbox. I don't see the point of proposal 2. It seems almost a non-change. Advising that people check things that already exist is not much help. But I like proposal 1. It seems a lot more helpful 99.192.79.196 (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
The reason for proposal 2 is that proposal 1 has encountered a fair amount of option, so I wanted to offer something that's less controversial while still clarifying the policy. The point of proposal 2 is that it clarifies where the problems are defined in existing policy -- rather than leaving the editor to guess what "problems" means.
To be clear, I think the main problem with COMMONNAME as it stands is the ambiguity over "problems." Any way we can fix that is a step forward. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm still for trying to see if proposal 1 can get the support it needs. If the discussion goes toward talking about proposal 2, I'll just have a nap instead :-) 99.192.79.196 (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)[reply]
Any ideas on how to move forward on proposal 1? The debate seems to have stalled a bit. And I would very much appreciate your support for proposal 2 if it comes to that, even if it's not your favorite. I still think it's a meaningful improvement on what's there now. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion was started at 20:57, 3 September 2013, 31 hours seems a bit rushed to start further than the above. Why not give it another 36? There is quite a bit to read and take in.
Also, where has the discussion been announced? Since this discussion was motivated by an issue of interest to strong partisans, the widest possible awareness of it should be brought to the larger community. I've never followed the Village Pumps much, but at least an announcement/notification there would seem warranted. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 03:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that announcements would help get more input. I fear the arrival of the highly-motivated partisans of recent disputes. This proposal is Baby Bear, but there are lots of people who will fight to the death for Papa Bear or Mama Bear solutions. (Speaking of which, the article is really titled "The Story of the Three Bears"?) 99.192.79.196 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
I like the analogy. It does seem a bit bizarre that as soon as someone mentioned the word transgender a whole bunch of people arrived and criticized the proposal. Which is to say, this is highly partisan as Carol mentioned. I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at, but I think the proposal I put forth is relatively modest and not a drastic change -- it's a clarification of what's already there. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect people are more interested in arguing about arguing than they are in wikipedia policy. --Space simian (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Announcements would be a good idea. I mentioned it on the Manning talk page, which will certainly have reached a fair number of partisans on both sides (which sort of inflames the debate; it might be nice to get some different perspectives). Thanks for the suggestion. Oh, and I like to do things quickly. If you ever see me edit articles I waste no time; I'm not hasty but I get things done as quickly as they can be. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My question is: When do we take proposal 1 to a !vote? I'd rather at least give it a chance to fail on it's own if we can't get enough support for it, and if and only if it fails, move forward with the less powerful (and in my opinion, mostly irrelevant) proposal 2. I don't think it's necessarily time for that yet, as it might still flounder and fail, but what are we looking for before we take the step forward and actually try to get proposal 1 made into a formal thing? Cam94509 (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can do a survey / !vote any time. Let's wait and see if any more comments come in in the near future, and then we can put it up formally. Let me know once you think it's a good time, Cam94509. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A point of curiosity about proposal #1: given that it doesn't spell out particular cases, does wiki do "caselaw"? By that I mean, if I wanted to move X to Y and used that text as a policy foundation, would that establish precedent such that future arguments over moving nearly-X to nearly-Y can cite that move as having essentially made case-policy? Chris Smowton (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Intuitively that makes sense, and naming from other articles can provide some helpful guidance, but you'll often hear pushback from users citing WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ultimately cases do not create policies; we don't go by precedent but by what's on the books (which itself changes). Furthermore, we don't do retroactive / grandfathering considerations; we go by current policy and don't consider what the policy "would have been" at the time the article was created. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a legal sense (although Wikipedia policies aren't laws), we follow civil law and not common law. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although Wikipedia does not defer to precedents, WP:TITLE does list Consistency as one of its bases for determining a proper title; it can be argued that a certain result would yield greater consistency with titles of similarly situated articles. bd2412 T 01:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current proposals on the table

Click here to edit proposal sandbox

Feel free to edit any of this as you see fit. It's a sandbox, no one "owns" the proposals.

Current wording

When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

Proposed wording 1 - specify what types of names would be problematic

When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and the most commonly used one has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose one of the other names. Examples of names that have problems include, but are not limited to:

  • Names of people or groups of people, when the subject has stated a preference for a different name (for example, Cassius Clay, the former name of Muhammad Ali)
  • Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams whose names have been officially changed because the old name was thought to be offensive (for example, St. John's Redmen, the former name of the St. John's Red Storm)
  • Names that have become used less frequently because they are widely considered offensive (for example, negerboll, another name for chokladboll)

Proposed wording 2 - point the reader in the direction of where to find problems

When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems (see the other sections of this page and the specific naming conventions for examples of such problems), it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

Proposed wording 3 - special case for personal name changes

Add the following phrase to WP:COMMONNAME:

If a person express preference for one name (for example by changing it) and both the old name and the new name are commonly accepted by reliable sources, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose that name even if it is not the most frequently used.

Proposed wording 4 - clarifies existing policy w/o major changes

When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them commonly reported in reliable sources, and the most frequently reported name creates issues with other policies, it may be reasonable to choose one of the other names.

Proposed wording 5 - makes it more explicit under what circumstances we choose a less common name

When there are multiple common names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and the most frequently used has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose one of the other names. Examples of names that have problems include:

  • Cases where an individual has stated in reliable sources a clear preference to use a different name (for example, Muhammad Ali instead of Cassius Clay, Chaz Bono instead of Chastity Bono)
  • Cases where a government has stated in reliable sources a clear preference for use of a different name (for example, Kolkata instead of Calcutta) This assumes there is no dispute over who has the right to select a given name, since some geographic features have multiple authorities proposing names.
  • Cases where representatives of an ethnic group that can be reasonably assumed to speak on behalf of the group have stated in reliable sources a clear preference for use of a different name (for example, Ktunaxa instead of Kootenai, Nishi people instead of Dafla people)
  • Names that have become used less frequently because they can widely be considered offensive (for example, Chokladboll instead of Negerboll)
  • Names of sports teams, buildings, or other objects where the most common name is widely considered offensive and the owners have proposed a new name (for example, St. John's Red Storm instead of St. John's Redmen)
  • Cases where the most common name is ambiguous, vulgar, or pedantic

If the target name is the result of a recently announced name change, there must be evidence that the intention to change the name is a genuine and enduring one. (then add language here about prioritizing sources after the name change, etc)

Proposed wording 6 - specify what types of names would be problematic + countries + groups

When there are multiple common names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and one of those names has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose one of the other names. Examples of names that have problems include, but are not limited to:

  • Former personal names, when the subject has stated a preference for a new name (for example, Cassius Clay, the former name of Muhammad Ali)
  • Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams that have had their names officially changed by their owners (for example, St. John's Redmen, the former name of the St. John's Red Storm)
  • Names that have become used less frequently because they can widely be considered offensive (for example, negerboll, another name for chokladboll)
  • Cases where a government has stated in reliable sources a clear preference for use of a different name (for example, Côte d'Ivoire instead of Ivory Coast)
  • Cases where representatives of an ethnic group that can be reasonably assumed to speak for the majority have stated in reliable sources a clear preference for use of a different name for their group (for example, Ktunaxa instead of Kootenai, Nishi people instead of Dafla people)

Proposed wording 7 - strengthen MOS:IDENTITY to a clear policy that also applies to titles of biographical articles

  • Promote the MOS:IDENTITY guideline (or at least part of it; details to be discussed) to a policy, clarifying its wording to make explicit the intent that in the case of trans* people it applies to names as well as pronouns.
  • In both WP:AT and WP:Naming conventions (people), say that for biographical articles, the resulting IDENTITY policy will apply also to names used as article titles. The title of a biographical article should therefore be consistent with the primary name used in its content. If there is an exceptional reason not to use any particular name in the title, that also applies to the content and vice versa.
  • If a subject uses more than one name for themself among which they have specified no preference, this policy does not require any particular choice. However, the name decided on should be consistent between title and content. (This does not mean that all parts of a name need be used in any particular instance.)
  • In deciding names to be used for the subject of a biographical article, WP:RS and WP:NPOV are to be considered relevant to the question of what name(s) the subject uses for themself, and only that. There are to be no popularity contests attempting to decide how many sources refer to the subject by one name vs another, unless the subject has indicated no preference.
  • The above changes apply to biographical articles of all living people. They also apply to biographical articles of people who have died (or are missing presumed dead) provided that: a) there is reliable evidence of the name they used for themself, and b) that name is a name by which they have been commonly known. ("Commonly" here does not mean that there is any minimum threshold for how well they need to have been known by that name, or for how long.)
  • For other articles, adopt proposal 6 above.
  • In cases where a person has changed their name and an article is referring to a past point in their life, this proposal does not specify whether they should be referred to with their old or new name, except in the following case: no person shall be "outed" as transgender by use of an old name, or otherwise, unless the fact that they are transgender is already publically known, and is considered relevant to the article. (Other cases are up for discussion.)


Continued discussion of proposals on the table

  • I've added a new proposal, #5. At this point, it would be great if contributors could take a look at the 5 options, and add any additional ones (or tweak wording - it's not policy yet, so be bold), until we get close to a change you would support. Ideally, I'd like to get this down to three options: (a) Do nothing (b) Change X and (c) Change Y - that way, when we open this up for an RFC we can present a few clear choices.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current proposals, I have to ask: Does anyone support Proposition 1 over Proposition 5? Is there anything proposition 1 does that proposition 5 does not do? Also, does anyone support proposition 3 over proposition 5? Just wondering, because I like propositions 1 and 5, and I think 5 is arguably the better of the two of them. Cam94509 (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5 is more expansive, and more explicit about requiring a statement in RS about preferring a new name. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see. I'm asking if anyone prefers 1 or 3 to option 5, because, if not, we can just focus on option 5 for now. Cam94509 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From my POV, the only two proposals worth talking about are P1 and P5. In general, I like them both. Bullet point 2 (BP2) from P1 seems to be dropped in P5. That seems to me to be a large omission that makes P1 preferable. BP2 of P5 would be covered by BP2 of P1 (a country is an "entity") if the word "owners" was changed. I didn't like using that word in the first place, so I like making that change to P1. BP3 of P5 is good, but could be covered in the "personal names" BP by making it "names of people or groups of people". My two main concerns with P5 are I am not sure the examples chosen are all good ones (but this is a minor point, not a fatal flaw) and I worry that the more detailed the proposal is the stronger the opposition from the "let's do nothing" folks might be. So I guess on the whole tweaking P1 so that, without making it much longer, it covers countries and groups of people more clearly would be my preferred choice. 99.192.57.25 (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192...)[reply]
I made a proposal 6 along those lines. Feel free to edit it with different examples and such. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I admire the effort and the intention is good, but on first glance P6 is worse because it is longer. We've gone from 3 to 4 to 5 bullet points. I might try tomorrow to piece something together that is more concise. 99.192.57.25 (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Leave out Ivory Coast. That by itself is an entire can of worms that you don't want to open here. bd2412 T 02:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Changing BP2 (of either P1 or P6) to say "Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams whose names have been officially changed" and leave out "owners" covers countries.99.192.57.25 (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
I think we need to look Ivory Coast in the eye. The sources are rather close - Ivory Coast is perhaps 2x at most vs Côte d'Ivoire, and the govt has expressed a clear preference.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not as an example, no. The best examples are clear cases. Right now, Wikipedia's article is called "Ivory Coast", so it is actually a very poor example to use. It might be a candidate for a name change based on the revised guideline, but it is not (yet) an example at all. 99.192.57.25 (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
True - I guess what I meant was, any policy we put forth should allow an (eventual) move of Ivory Coast - otherwise we're missing the point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the reason I removed the sports teams/buildings/organization is because the standard being proposed here is that a rename is not sufficient - there has to be a RS that says 'we prefer you call x vs y'. It's hard to see how going with commonname for a sports team, building or org could somehow hurt someone's feelings, and I can't think of a case where the owners came forth and caused a media issue over use of the old name. It would also mean we have to move big ben to elizabeth tower, which violates the heck out of commonname. As such, in those cases it's better to wait for commonname to catch up. These are meant to be exceptions to commonname, not 'anytime anything changes their name we follow blindly'. we may also want to quantify usage of most common vs target name - what do you think about target name being demonstrably at least 10% of most common - esp if we look post-name-change? That would ensure we are following at least some sources - frequently is just too vague. The examples can be debated but I do think it's useful to put forth several.. I think we should separate groups of ppl as we need to have special rules around how to know whether a group really wants to rename themselves, vs just a minority of that group.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The teams and buildings idea came from examples I offered, including the St. John's example used in the BP. When I mentioned the examples in the first place they were all examples of entites whose names were changed because the old name was thought to be offensive. That last element has been lost in the BP wording. So perhaps saying "Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams whose names have been officially changed because their previous name was regarded as offensive" or something like that. 99.192.57.25 (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Yeah, changing the wording about the sports teams would relate back to the comment I made just below regarding the intention to "avoid offense" / honor WP:BLP. E.g. Red Storm, Washington Redskins (although the Redskins opposition is not exactly mainstream). It would make the different cases cohere more logically together and would cut out cases of thoughtless / attention-grabbing name changes. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like proposal 5, with the teams/buildings now removed, is mostly focused on avoiding offense. Perhaps we could relate this back to WP:BLP? It seems like the main goal there is to respect the wishes of the subject / those who are generally "allowed" to speak on behalf of the subject. I would also note that many in the Manning move discussion cited BLP, so there's some sort of belief that WP:BLP extends to honoring the wishes of the subject (as in MOS:IDENTITY).
Regarding the 10% or whatever threshold, two concerns -- 10% seems quite low.. to me, that 10% can represent a whole lot of radical ideas that are most definitely not mainstream. I mean, the number of people who believe in Elvis conspiracy theories is probably way more than 10% of the population. Should we really give equal weight to a niche population like that? Should we start saying Elvis is still alive, just because 10% of the population has been convinced? What I'm getting at is that, in my view, 10% doesn't qualify as "common" per COMMONNAME.
I'm not so sure if we can / should quantify coverage like that. I personally think The New York Times should count for 25% of all RS in a formula, but others may attack it as biased and say it should count for 1% (vice versa with Fox News). Which sources are the most reliable? What's the weight of each? It seems like those are tricky questions we could avoid by being general and leaving it open to the interpretation of the editors. I had thrown out the 40% figure before, not because I think that should be a hard and fast rule, but because I think our proposed additions should only make a difference in edge cases, where the split is roughly 60-40 (as it has been in the Manning RS until the past few days). In other words, I think our proposal should only for a limited set of changes and not allow for really obscure names to become titles. Perhaps there's a different way we can describe the quantity of sources needed. Significant? Considerable? Modest? Extraordinary? High? Large? Wide? Heavy? CaseyPenk (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not followed any of the discussion about percentages as it was introduced as a "for example". Any discussion about trying to quantify references in the policy is an extremely bad idea. Since it keeps coming up, let me say for the record that I strongly oppose any and all suggestions that involve percentages being included in any revision. 99.192.65.45 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
I personally prefer p5 or p6 so far but I think we should limit cases to names of people or groups of people (countries can probably be considered a group in this case), since this change is mostly motivated by trying to get the policy more compatible with the thinking behind WP:BLP. I also note that there is a discussion about stadiums above where people seem to prefer the common name more than the official i.e. the opposite what this suggests.--Space simian (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...since this change is mostly motivated by trying to get the policy more compatible with the thinking behind WP:BLP." That might be the motives of others participating in this discussion, but it is not mine. But as I noted way up above, if names that can cause offense are of a concern at all, then names of buildings, schools, stadiums, and foods are all within the legitimate scope of the discussion. As for the above discussion of stadiums, there they are talking about cases where there is a clear common name and the common name is not problematic to use, so it is a different issue. Personally, that qusestion seems like a no-brainer that becomes more complicated because some people think the "official" name should be used even when it is not the common name. But that's a different dispute not relevant to this one. 99.192.65.45 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Yes, it's clearer now, after the last update, what we mean. --Space simian (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is best server by following the usage in verifiable reliable sources. The consensus for Burma and Ivory Coast (with input from scores of editors) clearly contradict what you are saying about countries. And those are the easy ones, try stepping into the quagmires of articles about ethnicity; nearly any article that involves the Israeli/Palestinian issue; border disputes in Eastern Europe; whether something was or was not a genocide/massacre etc; who owns Liancourt Rocks and so can decide on the official name? We have a whole humorous page on these issues see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Names. My serious point being that I think some of those in this discussion are focusing too narrowly on one specific issue and are not considering the wider ramifications (which I think a read of LAME would help fix), and so (to repeat myself) I think "and one of those names has problems" is the most useful wording for a policy. Guidance for what problems are should reside in the naming conventions (At guidelines). -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I think it might be good to limit the scope to people... but I suspect the proposed change will at best make it easier to make a decision in those cases and at worst not make any difference at all.

I've been looking at the past RM of Ivory Coast, it's a bit weird because some news agencies seem to insist on using 'Ivory Coast' while governments [4] [5], the UN [6], NGOs [7] and other encyclopedias [8] all use 'Côte d'Ivoire'. Either way, it does not to appear to be a big deal if we end up with 'Côte d'Ivoire' since that appears to be the more encyclopedic option. (If you check the talk page there is a list of previous RM and clearly there is no consensus.) --Space simian (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All this talk of the complexity of country cases makes me feel more strongly that my suggested rewording of P1 ("Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams whose names have been officially changed") allows for countries to be considered, but would not really change any of the current debates that have been going on about Burma or Ivory Coast. The specific mention of countries in P5 and P6 seems to be a very bad idea as well as unnecessary. 99.192.65.45 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
I've removed Ivory coast, and added Kolkota instead, which was also hotly contested, and arguments were made that Calcutta is still the most commonly known. I agree, we shouldn't have a page that hasn't *actually* yet moved to the new target. I do think we should call out governmental entities and associated renames there, as there are special cases around what a govt is "allowed" to name - in the case of Burma, there is reasoned debate that a military dictatorship is not an authentic arbiter of names and many opposition groups oppose the rename, so Burma may remain where it is for that reason. On the other hand, no-one that I know of is opposed to "Cote d'Ivoire". But there are disputed entities which two governments claim and name differently - in this case we shouldn't take sides - just a long way of saying, government changing the name of something is a special case that deserves its own bullet point and shouldn't be conflated with stadiums.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the proposals all miss an important point... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common... then there IS no COMMONNAME ... thus, WP:COMMONAME would be moot. We would reach a consensus as to the best title by looking at all the other criteria and provisions of WP:AT and finding the right balance between them.
That said... the COMMONNAME does need a re-write. It has become incredibly jumbled and confusing, due to instruction creep... and the amount of repetition is ridiculous. It needs a clean up, not more instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right that the above proposals only give additional guidance when there is no clear COMMONNAME (or when the COMMONNAME is very likely to change) and possibly de-emphasize the importance of frequency a little when there are possible BLP concerns, so it is no major change of the current policy.--Space simian (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "all of them fairly common" needs to be changed a bit, but my reading of it was to say that we are not talking about a completely obscure name while, at the same time, there might actually be one common name. There is no doubt that "Joe Namath" is THE common name for Joe Namath, but he has been called "Broadway Joe" as a nickname and it uniquely picks him out. So there is a clear common name, yet there also is something that is common enough to be an alternative if one were needed. 99.192.65.45 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Yeah, that part might need some more work. I think there is agreement that the name needs to be commonly accepted by reliable sources and that there needs to be a problem with the more frequently used name, e.g. the subject has rejected it in some way. What we want to avoid is changing the name because a fringe group is trying to promote a controversial name, e.g. a sect promoting their leader as the new messiah, so we need to check with reliable sources that there is broad acceptance for the alternate name. --Space simian (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar, the language (at least in #5, which I just changed further based on the above discussion) is clear that this is about cases where (1) there is a most common name and (2) the most common name has problems. Please take a look at #5 now - I've removed examples where the page hasn't yet moved (Cat Stevens, Ivory Coast), and added a bit about being careful about government claims for disputed naming rights (such as an island both countries claim, who gets to name it - in these cases, we default back to commonname and WP:CRITERIA). I also re-added the stadiums/sports teams/etc example, but made it clear that this is only to be invoked when there is some sort of wide acceptance of offense - which would thus eliminate companies that rebrand stadiums for vanity reasons - we should still wait till the new stadium name catches on in RS, and not jump right away.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrasing "COMMONNAME" is sort of off-mark to begin with. The idea that there is one all-encompassing, definitive common name for every subject is simply a fantasy. Many entities are referred to by multiple different names, some of which are more common and some less common. In such cases we need to exercise editorial judgment and pick one or another based on our reasoning. The idea that all subjects can be describe using a single "COMMONNAME" rather than, say, "COMMONNAMES," unnecessarily constricts our options. Rather than think in terms of one single name, why don't we think about the range of different names? CaseyPenk (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if articles could simply have multiple titles. Then, in contentious move debates between two names, you could just say "both". If the user comes in via Bradley, they see "bradley" - if they come in via Chelsea, they see Chelsea. Then we let google/the world decide which version of the page is worth linking to. But thats VP-technical sort of question, and it may cause more trouble than it's worth. I don't like the idea of hybrid titles (like aluminum/aluminium), etc. however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, having something in the software that could show it both ways would be delightful. It's similar to how, when you search for a page using a certain name, it takes you to the correct page but it keeps the URL of the search term you used originally (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:TITLES. Whether it's easy or not, such a feature would certainly be possible to implement, and would be a great help in cases such as these. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just think from the DB perspective, the page has to live at a given place, so there would probably always be the "really truly absolutely database-level official name", and people would still debate over who gets to hold that slot - and which of the "redirects" could be turned into "titles", vs which would remain lowly redirects. Ultimately, these arguments are about resource scarcity, and the title is the most scarce resource in all of wikipedia. There aren't multiple articles and multiple POVs, there is one wikipedia article per topic. Other content debates can be wrangled with wording, but usually not titles. Sayre's_law comes to mind: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." - There's a bit of that going on here as well, we should create a COMMONNAME analogue... My least favorite argument is "We can create a redirect from the other page" - which even I, in my jedi-like wisdom, have used - but it's completely meaningless - because the other side can say the same thing and be equally correct.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I complained that in the proposals we had gone from THREE bullet points in proposal 1 to FIVE bullet points in proposal 5. Now I see proposal 4 has grown to up the ante to SIX bullet points. More is not better. It makes it worse. So I am going to have a crack at modifying proposal 1 without lengthening it. Here's what I came up with. I call it Proposed wording 99:

When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and the most commonly used one has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose one of the other names. Examples of names that have problems include, but are not limited to:

  • Names of people or groups of people, when the subject has stated a preference for a different name (for example, Cassius Clay, the former name of Muhammad Ali)
  • Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams whose names have been officially changed because the old name was thought to be offensive (for example, St. John's Redmen, the former name of the St. John's Red Storm)
  • Names that have become used less frequently because they are widely considered offensive (for example, negerboll, another name for chokladboll)

Ok. That looks pretty good to me. Names for ethnic groups (like the Ktunaxa) or collections of people (like the still uncontroversial - but who knows in the future - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) are covered by bullet point 1. Countries or other places that change names thought to be offensive are covered by bullet point 2, as they are kinds of "entities". (If Lost Coon Lake in Montana, formerly known as "Nigger Lake" decides that maybe the name is still a problem, a change would clearly fall within the scope of this bullet point.) I am not really worried about covering countries specifically anyway, but even if none of the bullet points covers them the "include, but not limited to" preamble clearly allows for them to also be considered. There. Still just three bullet points and three examples. I like it. 99.192.87.226 (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]

  • Oppose: This entire discussion is taking the policy in exactly the wrong direction... away from a neutral determination based on source usage... and towards a non-neutral determination based on "what is the desire of the subject".
What you are trying to address is the question "What should we do when the official (or self-desired) name of a subject changes"... The answer to that question is... "WAIT... Do NOT immediately change the title of the article. Wikipedia does not base it's article titles on the subject's official name or self-desire. Instead it bases its article titles on usage in reliable sources"
What we should be addressing is the question: "What should we do once source usage starts to change?" The answer to that question is... "follow the sources (giving more weight to those written after the subject announced the change)... Look at both the quantity of sources that are changing their usage, and the quality of those sorces. If a significant majority have changed, then we should change our title to reflect that shift in source usage. If a significant majority have not changed, then we should continue to reflect the sources by using the "old" name. If a significant majority can not be determined, then we can say that there is no COMMONNAME... and we should reach a consensus based on other criteria and provisions of this policy. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, I understand where you're coming from, and I understand where COMMONNAME stands on this issue. The challenge is, there are cases where COMMONNAME hasn't yet caught up with subject's preference - because the weight of previous sources sometimes outweighs the new ones, or it takes a while for the new name to propagate - and we are making a presumption here that not titling the article per the subjects preference has the potential for harm. The changes above are intended to modulate commonname to allow the selection of a (slightly) less common name - suggesting that it IS already used in reliable sources - even if NOT YET a majority of sources. The intent is to consider the potential harm which could be done to a subject and balance that against the needs of the readers. the trans* name change is obviously the extreme case, but we have many others. I'd be interested in getting your support for this, so wondering how we can adjust the proposal to address your concerns.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, to echo what Obi said, the Manning debate has been a cautionary tale that COMMONNAME as it currently stands does not deal gracefully with cases of transgender people among others. Many editors expressed a concern that using the subject's former name violates WP:BLP or is otherwise harmful. We both would appreciate your support and are wondering what's suitable to you. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two quibbles. First, as I mentioned above, BLP and harm to living people might be the concern of some people, but it is not a concern that I have, and I do support a wording change. Second, what I think Blueboar is missing is that these proposals are not about creating a new policy, but to simply clarify existing policy. The policy as it reads right now is this: "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The main purpose of these proposals is to provide some guidance about what can and should count as "has problems". The idea of not taking the most common name when it "has problems" already is policy. We are just making that existing policy more clear. 99.192.83.251 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]

I just figured out how to edit the proposals, so I have modified proposed wording 1 with the suggestion I made a few comments up. 99.192.73.248 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]

99... I accept that your intent is to merely clarify existing policy, and not to change it, I even accept that you believe your proposal achieves your intent. However, I feel that the proposal does in fact change existing policy... and I think it does so significantly. It moves us from being completely neutral (following the source usage) to being non-neutral (following the subject's wishes). For me it is that simple. Furthermore, I am unconvinced that entitling an article using the subjects "old" name does any serious harm to the subject. Especially since we would note the name change in the text of the article, no matter what title we give it. (Indeed, we would probably note it in the very first sentence... and in big bold print). No, using someones "old name" does not harm the person. Blueboar (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, let's start with what you and I agree on: I also believe that using an unpreferred name as the title of an article does no harm to the subject that we should be worried about. But here is where we disagree: You believe that the present policy is neutral by relying solely on what the sources say. I don't see how you can read the present wording and come to that conclusion. So I have to ask you this: Can you give me an example of what would count as a correct application of the current policy, the one that reads "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others"? If anything, your support for being "neutral" and "following the source usage" seems directly at odds with this part of the policy. So what's an example of applying the present policy? 99.192.50.55 (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)[reply]
OK, first... Our concept of COMMONNAME refers to situations where there is one name that stands out as being more recognizable than others. So... "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common"... then there is no COMMONNAME. There is no need for the WP:COMMONNAME section to talk about whether one of the choices "has problems", because it does not apply in situations where there are multiple common names. When there is a COMMONNAME (one name that stands out because it is used significantly more often in reliable sources) then that name is what we should use because it best conforms with our title criteria... it will be the most recognizable name... and it will almost always be the most natural name.
Now let me address the issue of Neutrality. When it comes to titles, for us to be truly Neutral, we have to step back and "not care" what the outcome of any article title deliberation will be. We look at the evidence as presented in reliable sources, and give the various options DUE WEIGHT. Now... if the subject of our article desires to be called X, we should (and do) give his/her wishes a reasonable degree of weight... but... when a significant majority of reliable sources call our subject Y, then that predominance carries more weight. It would be non-neutral for us to favor the wishes of the subject over what is used by a significant majority of reliable sources.
Of course, in situations where there is not a significant majority (ie there is no COMMONNAME), then we don't have that predominance outweighing the due weight we reasonably give to the subject's desires. When there is no COMMONNAME to outweigh alternative titles, we can look to other policy/guideline provisions to choose the title (indeed we have to do so). Then, I would say we should follow the subject's desire (if possible).
So... when a person or entity announces that they have changed their name, we recognize and accept that there will be a transition period... It's a three step process.
  • Step one... as soon as the change is announced, we should make a note of that announcement in the text of the article. However, at this point the "old" name is still more recognizable... so we don't change the title - YET.
  • Step two (once one or two sources start to use the "new" name), Highlight the new name as an "alternative name" in the lede sentence (in bold letters in the lead so people pay attention to it). At this point we would also create a redirect page for the "new" name.
  • Step three - as more sources use the new name, the old name ceases to be the COMMONNAME. We then can swap things around... the "old" name becomes the "alternative" and the "new" name is used for the title. The redirects would also swap.
How quickly this occurs depends on the sources... it might be just a matter of a few days... it might be years. But since we are neutral as to the title, we shouldn't care how quickly it happens... at each step we let the sources drive our actions. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of things to unpack here. First, you say "So... 'When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common '... then there is no COMMONNAME." That is incorrect. The policy clearly says, "...some topics have multiple names ... Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used ... This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: 'COMMONNAME'." So if one name is used 52% of the time and another name is used 48% of the time, the one used 52% of the time is the "COMMONNAME". But at the same time it is also true that the one used 48% of the time is "fairly common", satisfying the sentence "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems...." There can be a COMMONNAME and at the same time other names that are "fairly common".
Second, you spend a lot of time here talking about names of people, which is understandable given the context in which this discussion arose, but the proposal is about a lot more than just that. So with a team name or the name of a food, also examples, there could be a case where one name is used 52% of the time and another name used 48% of the time, yet the one used 52% of the time has problems. In a case like that, the policy says it is ok to use the 48% name, even though the other one is the COMMONNAME. 99.192.55.192 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
I agree with Blueboar. I also think that way this conversation has been structured by claiming "Current proposals on the table" when in fact the proposal not to implement any of them is missing, makes the construction and structuring of this section biased. It is like the metaphor used by EU proponents that the process is a journey to ever closer union, if one accepts the constraints of that metaphor then one is automatically forced to carry out a conversation within that metaphor and open oneself up to the accusation that "your are missing the train". Likewise this conversation is structured to imply that the current wording is inadequate and therefore needs changing , and that "ain't necessarily so". -- PBS (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, with all due respect, you are evading my question. The current policy says it is ok not to use the most common name when it "has problems". That is the existing policy, not any of the recommendations. So I am asking Blueboar (and now you) to give me an example of a situation where current policy would say that we should go with the less common name, because the policy is clearly saying we can do that. What do you think counts as an example of this situation? 99.192.50.55 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.912....)[reply]
I think the hang up is the interpretation of what is meant by "has problems". The intent was to cover things like the need for disambiguation (if the COMMONNAME is ambiguous, we can consider alternative names as a way to disambiguate). "Has problems" was never intended to include debates over name changes. We consider such debates normal routine and not "Problems". Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that a lot rides on what "has problems" means, which is what these proposals were meant to address. The whole point of them was to explain in some detail what that phrase could mean. Your claim that it was not intended to cover cases like the proposals describe got me wondering whether there was any evidence in the archives about when the wording was added and why. I found that the wording was added on August 22, 2011 in this edit as a result of this talk page discussion (which should look familiar to you). Looking at that material it seems likely that the phrase "has problems" was meant to refer back to the mention of "ambiguous or inaccurate names" and non-neutral names mentioned earlier in the paragraph. (Worries about titles being "vulgar" or "pedantic" were added to that paragraph subsequently and was in a later paragraph at the time "has problems" was added.) It would be more clear that the "has problems" was referring back to these if the wording were "has any of these problems" instead. But without it, it can remain an open question what counts as "having problems". 99.192.55.192 (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]

alternative proposal

  • Remove the "has problems" sentence from the WP:COMMONNAME section entirely.

The sentence is misplaced. If there are multiple names, "all fairly common" then COMMONNAME does not (indeed can not) apply... there is no COMMONNAME. It may be that it could work in some other section... but it does not really belong in COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my just added comments above. It would seem that if you want an alternative that merely clarifies a different reading of existing policy, you would want "has problems" to be replaced with "has any of these problems", thus referring back to the problems that are mentioned in the paragraph already. 99.192.55.192 (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]

WP:COMMONDAB?

Do the general principles of WP:AT such as WP:CRITERIA apply to a part of the title in parenthesis? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the intent is that they should... but we should probably examine some examples before we say yea or nay (especially some "tricky" ones that could make us think about unintended consequences). Did you have one in mind? Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally with any question we don't start with tricky ones. How many articles on en.wp have parenthetical disambiguation as part of the title? 300,000? 800,000? I'm asking a very basic question. Hasn't anyone ever asked this before? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that they should apply, but less rigorously than for the "meat" of the title. The issue arises over the proper use of "(entertainer)" as a disambiguator even in cases when few sources use the term to describe a particular subject. There's been quite a series of requested moves focused on this disambiguator. One argument made by In ictu is that because there are often few results for searches for "entertainer Foo" as opposed to "singer Foo" or "actor Foo", WP policy forbids (or discourages) using "entertainer" as a dab. My position is that when someone is WP:NOTABLE for more than one entertainment discipline, choosing one to the exclusion of the others is inaccurate and possibly misleading. "Entertainer" is a suitable umbrella term for someone notable as an actor and a singer. A similar situation arises in sports, when someone is notable for more than one sport. In those cases, we sometimes use "(athlete)" as a suitably comprehensive dab, even though few sources may use it to describe the athlete. Dohn joe (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's only one unusual example. If I'd have wanted to mention that I would have done so. Introducing it skews the question. The question is "Do the general principles of WP:AT such as WP:CRITERIA apply to a part of the title in parenthesis?" In ictu oculi (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why decide? We can have articles for Michael Jackson (singer), Michael Jackson (dancer), Michael Jackson (human), and throw in Michael Jackson (entertainer). But seriously though, I think in case of parenthetical disambiguation it makes sense for the contents of the parentheses to be as general as necessary to unambiguously identity the subject. No more general (then we wouldn't know who we're talking about) and no more specific (then we make somewhat POV choices about which of the hats they've donned has been the most important). The parenthetical bit is for disambiguation anyways so it's not really the core part of the title. The parenthetical text should be intelligible, and common in reliable sources, but I don't think we need to consider the title alongside the parenthetical as a fixed, packaged phrase. No one refers to anyone as Singer John Doe (all in one breath). We just call them John Doe, and mention that they sing. In other words, there's no "common" way to refer to someone with an ambiguous name, so the best shot would be something that sums up their work neatly. In short, "entertainer" seems like an entirely suitable designation, as would similar general categories. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Casey thank you but I cannot immediately see what WP:POVFORK has to say about whether WP:AT covers all of a title (including dab) or only non-parenthetical section. What about Spider! (TV series), Garhbeta II (community development block), Pârâul Caprei (Turia), Emily Cox (puzzle writer), Liberty Building (Buffalo, New York), Pocketwatch (album). Does WP:AT cover the section in parenthesis or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criteria apply, but with caveats - a dab is inherently odd, it's a Wikipedia creation meant to avoid namespace collision, which in the physical world doesn't cause the same problems, and when we have name collision in language we get around it with so-called 'natural' disambiguation. Thus, the pre-dab portion should be the part that closely hews to WP:AT - and the dab itself should be structured in such a way as to unambiguously differentiate the subject from other like-named articles (note - the point is not to Unambiguosly differentiate the article from all other known entities with the same name even those not present). Thus for better or worse dabs tend to get more specific only as new namespace collisions happen. Generally dabs should follow a set pattern so as to be easily recognized by readers - for example, we shouldn't have (novelist) (author) (writer) - we should settle on one ideally - and I also agree it should tend towards the more general description, but nonetheless one readers will recognize.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about the POVFORK was a saracastic joke to say that we can avoid this discussion by creating multiple articles for every subject. Perhaps I should put a sarcasm tag on such statements in the future. (:
"a dab is inherently odd, it's a Wikipedia creation meant to avoid namespace collision" -- exactly my point. The non-parenthetical bit clearly falls under WP:AT, but the parenthetical bit, I think, has a bit more leeway attached. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, it behooves us to use parentheticals that are recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent, i.e., that meet WP:TITLE. bd2412 T 18:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Common sense and policy. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then...

Okay, thanks, next question: If WP:AT covers the part of titles in (brackets) where does WP:AT say that it covers it? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it explicitly states so anywhere; I guess people assume the parentheses are a part of the whole anyways. We could clarify under "2. Parenthetical disambiguation" under "Disambiguation" that WP:AT applies to the parenthetical bit as well. I don't think it hurts to state things explicitly if they might be unclear. That helps the reader and clarifies it for future situations. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if not, then we can keep choosing reasonable disambiguators as we have always done. What problem are you trying to fix? Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning that parenthetical parts of titles are in fact covered in WP:Article titles would fix the problem of Users not knowing whether WP:AT applied to parenthetical parts of titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, they're not really "covered". What would you want WP:AT to say about what makes an appropriate disambiguator? Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving "naming conventions" pages to "article titles"

Closing this for now. Casey, feel free to re-open at a later date. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I find the current bifurcation between "Article titles" and "Naming conventions" considerably confusing. The existing names for those pages are inconsistent with this policy (WP:AT). As WP:AT states, names for articles should be consistent; similarly, the names for policy pages should be consistent.

"Naming conventions" is also vague -- despite editing Wikipedia for 7 or so years, I couldn't definitively tell you what a "naming convention" is. Naming of what? Naming of people? Of articles? Official names? Legal names? Preferred names?

I propose we move all the subject-specific naming conventions, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), to fall in line with the new title, as in Wikipedia:Article titles (geographic names). This would bring all naming / titling policies in line with one another, and would extricate us from the tricky business of declaring which name is the "real" name.

Looking back at this page's move request, I thought there might have been some sort of deep reason for keeping the specific pages at the old name. Yet, as far as I can tell, it was simply a matter of convenience, per these quotes:

Requested moves remain open for seven days. I am willing to close the request and carry out any necessary moves. Are you also proposing renaming all specific naming conventions? If so, please place a notice on the talk pages of all those. Ucucha 7:52 am, 2 February 2010, Tuesday (3 years, 7 months, 3 days ago) (UTC−8)

No, just this one, at least for now. If other pages want to change their titles, that can be done at a later date (IMO, ideally after people have had some time to get used to this change).

We've had a confusing bifurcation for over three years now. I think we should correct it. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions apply not only to titles, but to usage within articles. In many cases, the naming conventions are used for things which themselves never will have an article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. There is a discussion right now at WP:MOSLAW about naming conventions for case names, whether in titles or not, that should really stay at that location (though of course anyone is welcome to comment). It doesn't really affect Manning or any transgender issues, but it is standardization that is helpful. Maybe those sections could be transcluded to WP:AT? GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the "naming conventions" are about more than article titles, why does the template on the upper right corner of WP:AT state, "Topic-specific conventions on article titles"? CaseyPenk (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because they *do* often apply to article titles, but they also apply to more than that. WP:AT used to be called WP:Naming Conventions I think, it was moved a while back. Anyway, Casey, don't open up a new front when you're fighting a complex battle. Whatever confusion you might have on this point, I'd suggest waiting until the fire dies down. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is OK to have separate topic specific naming conventions... the key is to make sure they conform to the basic concepts set out at WP:AT and don't conflict (or if they must conflict for some reason... that the conflict is highlighted and fully explained). Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning their existence. I'm questioning their naming, which is inconsistent with that of WP:AT. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The royal one is an example where perhaps the naming conventions conflict with COMMONNAME, but we have a lot of royal-lovers here, so it would be hard to overturn that one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to contribute in some way as I can. The proposal above might need a major shift. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you started the fire :) Changing commonname is not for the faint of heart, especially in the middle of an epic wiki-battle. Commonname is one of the most sacred policies on the wiki, and is cited by thousands upon thousands of move requests. The changes proposed above - even the light-weight ones - could cause a drastic shift - so if you want to make a change here, you need to be ready for large RFCs and the long haul. I think Bd2421 was being a bit optimistic when he proposed that we could quickly push through a change here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone could have told me the change would be futile, would have spared the hard feelings. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult != futile young grasshopper! I think there is rough consensus that SOMETHING needs to change. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will take that as encouragement, or something. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tag "WP:COMMONNAMES" as disputed or under discussion?

And  Done

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

We are having amendment proposals right now. And people should be aware of them. --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tag that stresses the "under discussion" part and down plays the "disputed" part? COMMONNAME continues to be strongly supported, what we are discussing is the language and how to apply it in certain circumstances. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{under discussion}}; {{under discussion-inline}}; {{disputedtag}}. --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added {{under discussion}}. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ambiguous or inaccurate names

See Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 37#Questionable phrasing: Ambiguous or inaccurate

I reverted an edit by Blueboar made at 02:06, 6 September 2013. As was discussed previously this sentence is that to cover cases were we have reliable sources saying that a particular name is inappropriate for the subject of the article even if a survey of reliable sources indicate it is a commonly used name. It does not mean that an editorial consensus will necessarily agree with the expert opinion expressed in the reliable source, but such sources should be weighed when discussing what is the appropriate title. -- PBS (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an issue for the text of the article, not the title. As far as the title is concerned... If a significant majority of reliable sources use X, then it would be non-neutral for Wikipedia to decide that all these sources are in some way "wrong".
That said... I totally agree that we should take quality of sources into account when determining whether a majority is "significant" or not. However... we should not give UNDUE weight to one or two "experts" who say X is correct over a significant majority (that may well include other experts) that prefer Y. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The older example give was tsunami in place of tidal wave, because what are now commonly labelled tsunami were until a few years ago commonly called tidal waves although they are not. Looking at the recent discussions chokladboll/negerboll might fall under that category -- not sure it would take some investigation. -- PBS (talk)
But this is an example of how source usage can change... these events used to be commonly called "title waves"... but in recent years usage (especially usage in higher quality sources) has changed, and the events are now routinely called "tsunamis". I don't know if the "tsunami" usage has reached the level of "majority", but enough sources now use "tsunami" that we can say that "tidal wave" is no longer the COMMONNAME. That open the door to discussing options.
Until recently, I would have argued that the article should stay at Tidal wave... as that was far more recognizable to English speakers... and the place to note that the term "Tidal wave" is inaccurate would have been in the text of the article. Now, however, I would strongly argue for Tsunami... because usage in sources has changed (we would still note that these events used to be called "Tidal waves" in the text... with some explanation of why that term is inaccurate and how usage is changing because of that inaccuracy).
As to the larger point... My counter example is Boston Massacre. Almost any historian worth his/her salt will tell you that this name is highly inaccurate... what occurred in Boston on March 5, 1770 was hardly a "massacre". Yet despite the inaccuracy of the name, the event continues to be routinely and overwhelmingly called the "Boston Massacre", even by "experts" that note how inaccurate the name is. So... Wikipedia continues to use that name as our article title. More to the point... we should continue to use that name until source usage changes. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizability – although not necessarily an expert in

There has recently been a discussion on the talk page of the United Kingdom in a called Why would someone be looking for the Great Britain article? which revolves around whether a non-resident ought be aware that England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom are not synonyms for the same thing. This is a slightly different nuance on the usual take of what is the meaning of "someone familiar with" from that which is usually put forward on this talk page. -- PBS (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you look at the discussion it's not about article titles but about how to handle disambiguation via hatnotes and dab pages. So I don't think that it has anything to do with WP:AT's recognizability. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles&oldid=572079798"