User:Born2cycle/Concision razor: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:32, 21 April 2014

This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Article Titles policy page.

This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

This page in a nutshell: If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred.

Concision razor refers to a commonly used^{[citation needed]} method of deciding which of two titles to use for a given article when neither is favored by title selection criteria other than concision. The underlying idea is often ^{[citation needed]} referenced by editors in title discussions. For example, BD2412 (talk · contribs) once stated it as follows[1]:

Conciseness favors the shorter title to convey the subject. If two titles are equally good at identifying the subject, then the shorter one is preferred.

The concision razor should only be used when neither of two titles is favored by criteria other than concision. Specifically, this would mean that neither title is more commonly used than the other in reliable source (WP:UCN), both are used naturally (WP:NATURAL), both precisely distinguish the topic (WP:PRECISE), and both are consistent (not inconsistent) with titles of related topics. In such a situation both titles are equally reasonable choices. Applying the concision razor means resolving the conflict by choosing the shorter title.

Some may argue that the status quo title, even if it is longer, should be retained in such cases per (1) WP:TITLECHANGES, (2) WP:RETAIN, and (3) "if there is no strong case to change, do not change", however this position dismisses better adherence to WP:CRITERIA (specifically WP:CONCISE) as a good reason to change. Polling to determine which is preferred by the majority of the participants, giving more weight to the to the introductory terms use by the most authoritative and reliable independent sources, and choosing the more descriptive title are other methods that are promoted by some in such cases. Applying the concision razor is preferable to these alternatives for the following reasons.

Polling for preferences among discussion participants is inherently subjective—and is destined to reflect the preferences of those who happen to be participating. Since no guidance is provided on how to decide which of the two titles to prefer, preferences are necessarily entirely subjective. Therefore, some time later another poll with a different set of participants is likely to result in the opposite choice. This can lead to instability. In contrast, the shortest reasonable and available title is an objective characteristic and will always remain shortest.

As far as we can see, there is no basis in policy or convention to give more weight to the introductory terms use by the most authoritative and reliable independent sources when determining the name most commonly used in reliable sources, or as any kind of consideration in title determination. Those favoring the use of the Authoritative introductory term razor (if you will) in such cases might consider presenting an argument for doing so in a separate essay, or as a proposal at WT:AT. But something to consider is what happens when usage in RS indicates one name, and the Authoritative introductory term razor indicates another? Do we give it a higher or lower priority? Who decides? Doesn't this just lead to more grist for subjectivity, opinion, argument and disagreement?

Choosing the more descriptive title is contrary to policy, guideline and practice for a variety of reasons, including those presented at WP:UNDAB, and because "more descriptive" is open-ended. Almost any title can be "improved" in terms of being made more descriptive. If we are to prefer From Chaos (album) to From Chaos, because the former is more descriptive, then we should also prefer From Chaos (311 album) over From Chaos (album). Where does it end, and how do we decide? By polling participants for consensus that is likely to change depending on the makeup of those participating? This is an unstable method not rooted in objective criteria for making title selection. In contrast, choosing the shorter title is objective. Using the concision razor in appropriate situations results in reasonable titles that meet WP:CRITERIA better than any alternative by definition (it meets concise better, and the other criteria equally).

Brevity

Sometimes it is pointed out that conciseness is not just brevity, so it doesn't necessarily mean the shorter one. That is true. Comprehensiveness is also a key component of conciseness. Thus we don't prefer "Wate" to "water" for the title of Water, even though "wate" is shorter than "water", because "wate" is not a comprehensive title for that topic.

In the context of Wikipedia title selection, comprehensive cannot mean a comprehensive description of the topic—the introduction and body of the article are for that. This is exemplified by all of our titles, none of which are a comprehensive description of the topic. It means the title must be complete, or whole; not a partial title. So conciseness in the context of Wikipedia title decision-making means to use the shortest complete title. Of course, the title should also meet the other WP:CRITERIA, including natural and recognizable.

The comprehensiveness component of conciseness is not a reason to use a more descriptive title.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{nutshell|If two titles meet [[WP:CRITERIA]] other than ''conciseness'' equally well, then the shorter one is preferred.}}
-'''Concision razor''' is a term coined by {{User|Born2cycle}} in 2014, referring to a proposed tie-breaker method of deciding which of two titles to use for a given article when neither is <s>clearly</s><!--"clearly" is wordy, not needed, introduces ambiguity for no apparent purpose? --> favored by [[WP:CRITERIA|title selection criteria]] other than ''concision''.  The underlying idea has been referenced by editors in title discussions.<!--   Often? dubious-> "has been"  Often needs more substantiation to be asserted so -->  For example,  {{User|BD2412}} once stated it as follows[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticle_titles&diff=594085684&oldid=593939883]:
+'''Concision razor''' refers to a commonly used{{fact|Will provide citations later when I have more time}} method of deciding which of two titles to use for a given article when neither is favored by [[WP:CRITERIA|title selection criteria]] other than ''concision''.  The underlying idea is often {{fact}} referenced by editors in title discussions.  For example,  {{User|BD2412}} once stated it as follows[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticle_titles&diff=594085684&oldid=593939883]:
 {{quotation|Conciseness favors the shorter title to convey the subject. If two titles are equally good at identifying the subject, then the shorter one is preferred.}}
-<!--Since t.  Assuming opinion fact not already introduced.  -->The concision razor should only be used when both titles are <!--reasonable. redundant.  Implied --> based on [[WP:CRITERIA|criteria]] other than concision.  Specifically,<!-- this sentence introduced for completeness, editors should not be assumed to be necessarily conversant in the five criteria--> this would mean that both titles are well used in reliable source (WP:UCN), are used naturally ([[WP:NATURAL]]) both precisely distinguish the topic (WP:PRECISE), and both are consistent (not inconsistent) with titles of related topics.   Applying the ''concision razor'' means choosing the shorter title. <!-- is by definition reasonable, including meeting the ''recognizability'' criterion.  Redundant, repetitive.  If the intention is to emphasize that concision razor is to carry more weight than slight preferences/differences in recognizability, then say so more clearly-->
+The concision razor should only be used when neither of two titles is favored by [[WP:CRITERIA|criteria]] other than concision.  Specifically, this would mean that neither title is more commonly used than the other in reliable source ([[WP:UCN]]), both are used naturally ([[WP:NATURAL]]), both precisely distinguish the topic ([[WP:PRECISE]]), and both are consistent (not inconsistent) with titles of related topics.  In such a situation both titles are equally reasonable choices.  Applying the ''concision razor'' means resolving the conflict by choosing the shorter title.
-The main alternative methods that could be used in such situations are {{hilite | (1) [[WP:TITLECHANGES]], (2) [[WP:RETAIN]], (3) "if there is no strong case to change, do not change"| yellow }} (a) polling to determine which is preferred by the majority of the participants and (b) choosing the more descriptive title. {{hilite | (c) choosing the introductory term used in the most authoritative and reliable independent source (d) choosing the most consistent, with the first linked similar topic. | yellow }}  User:Born2cycle's opinion <!---Even if there are many of this opinion, it is opinion and it must not be presented as fact if it is in a project space page--> is that applying the concision razor is preferable to either of these alternatives.
+Some may argue that the status quo title, even if it is longer, should be retained in such cases per (1) [[WP:TITLECHANGES]], (2) [[WP:RETAIN]], and (3) "if there is no strong case to change, do not change", however this position dismisses better adherence to [[WP:CRITERIA]] (specifically [[WP:CONCISE]]) as a good reason to change.    Polling to determine which is preferred by the majority of the participants, giving more weight to the to the introductory terms use by the most authoritative and reliable independent sources, and choosing the more descriptive title are other methods that are promoted by some in such cases.  Applying the concision razor is preferable to these alternatives for the following reasons.
-Polling for preferences among discussion participants is inherently subjective—and is destined to reflect the preferences of those who happen to be participating. Since no guidance is provided on how to decide which of the two titles to prefer, preferences are necessarily entirely subjective.  Therefore, some time later another poll with a different set of participants is likely to result in the opposite choice.  This leads to instability.  In contrast, the shortest reasonable and available title is an objective characteristic and will always remain shortest.
+Polling for preferences among discussion participants is inherently subjective—and is destined to reflect the preferences of those who happen to be participating. Since no guidance is provided on how to decide which of the two titles to prefer, preferences are necessarily entirely subjective.  Therefore, some time later another poll with a different set of participants is likely to result in the opposite choice.  This can lead to instability.  In contrast, the shortest reasonable and available title is an objective characteristic and will always remain shortest.
+As far as we can see, there is no basis in policy or convention to give more weight to the introductory terms use by the most authoritative and reliable independent sources when determining [[WP:COMMONNAME|the name most commonly used in reliable sources]], or as any kind of consideration in [[WP:AT|title determination]].  Those favoring the use of the ''Authoritative introductory term razor'' (if you will) in such cases might consider presenting an argument for doing so in a separate essay, or as a proposal at [[WT:AT]].  But something to consider is what happens when usage in RS indicates one name, and the ''Authoritative introductory term razor'' indicates another?  Do we give it a higher or lower priority?  Who decides?  Doesn't this just lead to more grist for subjectivity, opinion, argument and disagreement?
-Choosing the more descriptive title is contrary to policy, guideline and practice for a variety of reasons, including those presented at [[WP:UNDAB]], and because "more descriptive" is open-ended. <!--, and, hence, unstable.  No.  Factually false as a logical construct.  Open-ended does not imply unstable--> Almost any title can be "improved" in terms of being made more descriptive.<!-- weak strawman style argumentation here, but not a critical failing-->  If we are to prefer '''From Chaos (album)''' to [[From Chaos]], because the former is more descriptive, then we should also prefer '''From Chaos (311 album)''' over '''From Chaos (album)'''.  Where does it end, and how do we decide?  By polling participants for consensus that is likely to change depending on the makeup of those participating?  This is an unstable method not rooted in objective criteria for making title selection.  In contrast, choosing the shorter title is objective.  <!--applying the ''concision razor'' is never subject to the whims of anyone.  changed as it was wordy too many self-reference of the page title -->  Using the ''concision razor'' is predicted by User:Born2cycle to habitually result in stable, reasonable titles that meet [[WP:CRITERIA]] better than any alternative (it meets ''concise'' better, and the other criteria equally).
+Choosing the more descriptive title is contrary to policy, guideline and practice for a variety of reasons, including those presented at [[WP:UNDAB]], and because "more descriptive" is open-ended.  Almost any title can be "improved" in terms of being made more descriptive.  If we are to prefer '''From Chaos (album)''' to [[From Chaos]], because the former is more descriptive, then we should also prefer '''From Chaos (311 album)''' over '''From Chaos (album)'''.  Where does it end, and how do we decide?  By polling participants for consensus that is likely to change depending on the makeup of those participating?  This is an unstable method not rooted in objective criteria for making title selection.  In contrast, choosing the shorter title is objective.   Using the ''concision razor'' in appropriate situations results in reasonable titles that meet [[WP:CRITERIA]] better than any alternative by definition (it meets ''concise'' better, and the other criteria equally).
 ==Brevity==