User:Born2cycle/Concision razor

Concision razor refers to WP:CONCISION-based reasoning commonly used[1] in 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 referenced by editors in title discussions. For example, BD2412 (talk · contribs) once stated it as follows[2]:

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.

While WP:CONCISION is often a consideration in title decisions, the concision razor reasoning is meant to be used specifically 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.

Counter arguments

The following arguments may be presented in opposition to using the concision razor.

1. When the current title is the longer one, some may argue that the status quo title, even if it is longer, should be retained in such cases per WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:RETAIN: "if there is no strong case to change, do not change".
2. Editors should be polling to determine which is preferred by the majority of the participants.
3. More weight should be given to the to the introductory terms use by the most authoritative and reliable independent sources.
4. The more descriptive title should be chosen because it is more helpful to readers.

Applying the concision razor is preferable to these alternatives for the following reasons.

1. The TITLECHANGES/RETAIN position is based on the assumption that there is no good reason or strong case to move to the shorter title. This argument dismisses the argument that better adherence to WP:CRITERIA (specifically WP:CONCISE), is a good reason to change. Presumably, WP:CRITERIA, including WP:CONCISE, reflects community consensus regarding how title decisions should be made. What better reason can there be than to select a title that meets this criteria better than the current one?
2. 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.
3. 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 provide more grist for the subjectivity, opinion, debate and argument mill?
4. 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.