This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Metropolitan Museum of ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan Museum of ArtTemplate:WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of ArtMetropolitan Museum of Art articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
– The parenthetic disambiguation in each of these titles is unnecessary. Their unadorned names are unique; we have no other articles that share any of these names. There is no ambiguity to resolve for any of them. For most of these, the articles were recently at the unadorned base names anyway, but were moved after what I believe to be a recent misguided RFC that was not announced at WP:RM and closed by a non-admin closer who I believe misread consensus. In any case, there is no basis at WP:AT or WP:D for including the parenthetic disambiguation in these cases. I understand the desire to have them all look the same as those that require disambiguation, but WP is replete with counter-examples. That's just not how we do things here. For example, we only add (film) in a title of an article about a film if the title is ambiguous. There are a few special cases, most notably most US cities, but the ", state" convention is arguably not disambiguation, as the ", state" is considered to be part of the name of each of these cities. By removing the parenthetic disambiguation on these titles we will bring them in line with policy, guidelines and conventions. Leaving them this way creates a precedent for ignoring our naming conventions and opens the door for much more ambiguity and conflict regarding what titles can be in such cases, a recipe for endless unproductive bickering. В²C☎20:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from referring to me as "inexperienced" or "misguided." To be frank, opening this discussion a couple of weeks after consensus was reached simply because you don't agree with it reflects poorly on you. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close, too soon after the proper close of the (allegedly misguided) RfC. Using RM to overturn a recent RfC is an issue. Naming conventions are prone to being disconnected from community consensus. I suggest the allegedly misguided RfC RM should be taken to Move Review, and that at a minimum an RfC reversal should also be an RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is going to proceed, I oppose the proposal to reverse the consensus of the RfC. The Fabergé egg's are named after things, and thus referring to them not in the context of "Fabergé egg" is ambiguous, not sufficiently precise. "Technical" uniqueness on Wikipedia is not good enough, titles have to inform the reader of the content of the article. Consistency between all Fabergé eggs is good, though it need not have had t have been parenthetical. However, I see this was addressed in the RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close - I earlier closed an RFC asking about merging two templates. Not a single person complained that this was taking place on a talk page instead of at WP:TFD. I started the RFC because an RFC (in my opinion) garners a much wider audience than a one-week RM discussion. Additionally, as stated by SmokeyJoe, overturning an RFC with an RM is just bad form, especially when the ink on the RFC is barely dry. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I performed the closure of the RfC. As can be seen from the edit history, I spent 30 minutes reading through the discussion, reading through applicable policies such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, and then closed the RfC with a result that reflected the consensus throughout the entire discussion. To suggest that either I didn't know what I was doing, or I didn't understand policy (key word there), or (laughably) that my status as a non-admin has any reflection on the closure... well, it made me do the rarely seen "triple facepalm." Exemplo347 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you had to read "through applicable policies such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION" demonstrates your lack of experience. It's not just reading the words that gives one experience, but actually experiencing how they apply to a variety of different title situation over several years is what makes one experienced. --В²C☎22:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, we're almost at the point of casting aspersions now? My reading of their statement was that they made sure the policies were being followed, not that they had never read them in the first place. If you have a argument with an outcome, make an argument against the outcome. Please stop trying to paint Exemplo347 like they are a pleb who has idea what they're doing. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I think it's beyond that point, but because I'm a delightful ray of sunshine I'll simply smile and rise above it all. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as nom. The outcome of the recent RFC is that we now have over 20 articles with titles that don't require disambiguation but which are disambiguated anyway. This proposal is to bring these titles in line with naming policy, guidelines and conventions by removing that unnecessary disambiguation. --В²C☎22:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC drew in many experienced Wikipedians who are not RM regulars. I read the RfC as having repudiated the alleged "unnecessary disambiguation" policy. Where is the "unnecessary disambiguation" section? It may require removal, and/or a policy page RfC to test it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Showed consensus against unnecessary disambiguators"? That is not true. Try reading the RfC you link. It was "no consensus" on additional specific guidance, which is consistent with variation on a case by case basis. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is indeed overly precise and unnecessary disambiguation, which I don't usually support unless the title has a chance to be ambiguous/shocking even if it's not a title other articles share. Here, I don't see that as the case. For instance, what else could Kelch Chanticleer possibly be that requires disambiguation? If someone searches for that title, they're likely to know what it is, and if they don't, the disambiguation is not the only thing that will clue them in. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least for moving of all of them. at least some of these articles might benefit from elucidation in some way. Individual Fabergé eggs are fairly obscure, and "Danish Palaces" unelucidated could confuse with List of castles and palaces in Denmark [[UPDATE: I see there is an article List of Danish royal residences]. Ditto for "Fifteenth Anniversary", "Lilies of the Valley", and "Rose Trellis", and maybe some others. It doesn't have to be parentheses, if the argument that "this looks too much like disambiguation" is taken to heart. It could be "Danish Palaces – Fabergé egg" or something else. "Fabergé egg Danish Palaces" maybe. Parens work OK for me, but I haven't thought deeply about nuances of titling issues and the repercussions of using parens for elucidation rather than strictly for disambiguation, and nominator has.
Actually "Danish palaces" should maybe be be a disambig page pointing to List of castles and palaces in Denmark and the egg (this doesn't preclude the egg from just being at "Danish Palaces" as the capitalization is different, but... not a huge fan of sending people to two entirely different places depending what capitalization they happen to use.)
Lillies of the valley should maybe be a redirect to Lily of the Valley (disambiguation) or something, "Fifteenth Anniversary" should possible have some way of getting to Anniversary, hatnote or dab I don't know... Bay tree is currently a disambiguation page... yes I understand that "Bay Tree" and "Bay tree" are technically different things, but rightly or wrongly people do consider "X Tree" to be proper names for tree species and type it that way...
Since some of them shouldn't be moved to their bare names (IMO), then it's a question of should some be moved and some not? Not sure, but possibly not -- the current situation looks neater anyway. Not voting on that, just opposing the concept that all of them should be moved.
Nominator makes the point that this is contrary to rule and common practice, and that stringently following rule and common practice has certain global benefits, such as reducing conflict and discussion time ("endless unproductive bickering"). Nominator may be right, and I don't know the answer to this larger point. At the same time, here we are, discussing, so.... everybody just relaxing about occasional exceptions being made, if there's a good reason (as there seems here) is maybe an alternate way to reduce discussions. It's a wiki. The titles of things aren't usually that important as long as the proper redirects and hatnotes are in place. Herostratus (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, pppery, this proposal makes the titling of this sequence less consistent, since some will have a disambiguator and some won't. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: It makes the titling of Fabergé eggs in general consistent with the way other sorts of articles (with a few exceptions) are titled on Wikipedia: with parentheticals when needed and without them when not. Pppery19:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:PRECISE, part of the WP:AT policy, is quite clear that a specific naming convention can override the general rule not to include parentheticals (see the Leeds North West and M-185 examples cited in the policy). As the recently concluded RFC-decided, Fabergé eggs are a good candidate for such a naming convention, and reasonably so, since they tend to have names that could be a bit confusing out of context, which is heightened by inconsistency among the set. While my preferred option for the naming convention was the natural disambiguation ("... egg") that appears to be part of the common names of these items, I fully accept the outcome of the RFC. This is not the place to re-litigate it.--Trystan (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trystan, Wikipedia:Article_titles#Explicit_conventions specifically warns against using specialized names (which includes the inclusion of unnecessary parentheticals in the title), and, more importantly, there is no specific naming convention justifying the inclusion of unnecessary parentheticals that applies here. Also, WP:TITLECHANGES specifically states that "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves" (like this one is). The RFC discussion you reference was not advertised there. --В²C☎00:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
В²C, The RfC was not advertised at RM? That is a serious failing. RM regulars should be advised of an RfC to impact titling conventions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a naming convention; it was just established by the recent "RFC on egg naming convention". I don't see anything in Explicit Conventions that the RFC ran afoul of. Listing at RM would have been good, but it would be ridiculous to throw out the entire discussion because of that omission. It was advertised at the Village Pump and drew a large number of contributors.--Trystan (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP is written for the readers, not to illustrate a theory of naming, or to see how few words can be used in a title. . One key purpose of a name is to confirm that the reader has identified the article they want. If they are looking for an article about an art object, they need to know that the article is about an art object. Sometimes a relatively fanciful name indicates this well enough, but a descriptive name almost never does. In this case some of the names are of each type, but they represent a uniform type of object, and the type is very well known and unmistakable. Readers are helped by consistency, and therefore the qualifier should be included. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Herostratus that moving all these articles would be problematic, since a number would be unclear without some kind of clarifier. Moving some but not others would run afoul of AT's guidance that a good title is consistent in form with those of similar articles. Moving none leaves a set that's clear and internally consistent, and is what I favor. ╠╣uw[talk]09:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Category:Fabergé eggs displays beautiful consistency. This sort of proposal must destroy consistency, as many, such as Catherine the Great (Fabergé egg), cannot be unambiguated. Looking at sources, mainly peripheral sources because most sources are firmly already in the context of Fabergé eggs, there are other ways to unambiguously name them, non-parenthetically. These include:
Oppose. The title should be at least somewhat descriptive. Without specifying "Fabergé egg" the title is not descriptive. Omnedon (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We use descriptive titles for ad hoc articles (e.g. "List of ...") and sometimes when disambiguation is required. Otherwise, especially without a specific naming convention to the contrary, normally we use the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject as the title of the article. Why an exception is warranted here is beyond me. --В²C☎13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Already thoroughly discussed and decided. No need for another discussion. And a particularly daft one to choose to place the RM on - are you really saying "Danish Palaces" is not ambiguous? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is no other destination for this title. It is currently a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. If that's an error then it's a separate matter. This proposal is about moving only those articles that are currently disambiguated and yet have WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs to them at the respective base name (mostly as a result of the RFC). I'm baffled by the support for all these unjustified primary redirects. --В²C☎13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your opinion of this guideline, it clearly states: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions." None of these cases apply here. The disambiguated form is not considered a different term in this context, these articles do not cover wider topical scopes, nor is there a specific naming convention that justifies the parenthetic remark in the title. If you disagree with the guideline, perhaps take it up at WT:D. If you want to argue WP:IAR, fine. But I don't see any acknowledgment of the guideline here, much less arguments for invoking IAR in each of these cases. Do you? --В²C☎16:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see a widely advertised RfC, advertised at the Village Pump, though not at RM, that was widely participated and a wide range of experienced editors, that repudiated the not-quite blank and white alleged policy prohibiting unnecessary disambiguation. Pppery 19:05, 3 May 2017, pointed me to an RfC that does not say what he alleged, but found no consensus that parenthetical disambiguation once invoked must be complete, which is quite a different question. I repeat that the lines on PrimaryRedirect have little awareness amongst the community, negligible visibility on the product, unlike actual titles, and can be discounted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Danish palaces can reasonably redirect there of course, but probably not Danish Palaces. I mean, if someone bothers to type in Danish Palaces with the P capitalized, they're almost certainly looking for the egg. Anyway, that's an issue independent of this proposal, since Danish Palaces is currently a redirect to this article anyway. --В²C☎16:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are people who are supporting this proposal ignoring the very clear criteria listed at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (for example "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. When no previous consensus exists, a new consensus is established through discussion, with the above questions in mind. 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."), skipping over it so they can cherry-pick the bits they like? Is it deliberate? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do think it's being ignored? That reference to "the guideline pages referenced" refers to naming area specific guidelines where community consensus has been reached and documented for that naming area. Examples include Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), WP:Naming conventions (films), WP:Naming conventions (flora), etc. There is no such guideline page referenced that justifies all this unnecessary disambiguation for this set of articles, and the basic WP:CRITERIA doesn't either, or this kind of parenthetic disambiguation when no disambiguation is required would be prevalent on many other articles.
Perhaps you're trying to say that a "new consensus [was] established through discussion" [in the previous RFC]? Again, the problem there was that discussion was not advertised at WP:RM, the standard place for listing title change requests, as specified on WP:AT at WP:TITLECHANGES: "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. " That said, this proposal to rectify what happened in that RFC was advertised at WP:RM, and still seems to be going down in flames, which I find to be astonishing. But that's what happens sometimes when editors focus on trying to establish consistency among article names within one particular area, instead of maintaining consistency with all article titles on WP (which includes disambiguation only when necessary). --В²C☎00:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:AT supports the current titles. For example, it states: "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." A general audience would have no idea that "Danish Palaces" is a Fabergé egg; only specialists would know that. The current titles better serve the interests of readers than the ones you suggest. This is reflected in the recognizability and conciseness criteria as well, not to mention consistency (since all the Fabergé egg articles follow the current naming convention). Omnedon (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am passingly familiar with Fabergé eggs, but would not recognise most of the list if presented in isolation out of context. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the usual reasons; disambiguation is better than ambiguity. This is the usual B2C conciseness uber Alles nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Unlike what is said above me, there is no ambiguity here, thus no disambiguation is needed. If you want these to be disambiguated, then we might as well disambiguate everything. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits12:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
