Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Titles starting with W:

Articles starting with W: are currently exclusively reserved for Wikipedia technical pages. What to do with such articles which should be titled the same way? For example W. Crichton Shipyard (Okhta) should be renamed W:m Crichton & C:o Okhta shipyard. I am also working on an article about W:m Crichton & C:o. What to do with these cases, is there any chance to use the real names as titles? --Gwafton (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I launched the article Wm Crichton & C:o under false name, hoping that it could be moved under W:m Crichton & C:o. --Gwafton (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Using a colon (W:m) to abbreviate the name William (or when abbreviating the word Company) is definitely not a standard form used in English language sources... I think the company name can be anglicized to a more normal form that is used. A quick google search on the topic seems to show that English language sources use "Wm Crichton & Co." for the parent company... I think that would be acceptable for the shipyard as well. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that the company was not British, so you cannot refer directly to English language sources. The contemporary sources use W^m Crichton & C^o (as on the envelope seal in the article) or W:m Crichton & C:o (see a newspaper advert). --Gwafton (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter whether the company is British or not... we still base our titles on how it is presented in English language sources, per WP:COMMONNAME. See also WP:Official names. Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The company logo, as in the lead image of the article, has Wm. Crichton & Co. (yes, with superscripts, but we don't do superscripts in article titles, so "Wm. Crichton & Co." it is). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It can stay as Wm. Crichton & Co. then. What do you think, how should it be written in the articles? According to the title Wm. Crichton & Co., or either of the contemporary W^m Crichton & C^o (which was apparently preferred) or W:m Crichton & C:o (compromised)? --Gwafton (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Again... look at how various English language sources present the name, and follow what the majority of those sources do. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There are hardly any English speaking sources about shipbuilding in Finland and they anyway apply typography that is either limited by character setting or author's willingness of putting effort on correctness. Therefore, I would not regard them as applicable sources. The contemporary typography applied by the company is more trustworthy. Therefore, I suggest spelling it either W^m Crichton & C^o or W:m Crichton & C:o. --Gwafton (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, far as typography of names -- how names, and characters within names, are presented, as opposed to actual spelling -- I guess our de facto rule is we go with conservative contemporary typography -- hence "Pink (singer)" and not "P!nk", "Walmart" and not "Walmart*" or "WAL*MART" etc. -- unless

1. a particular typography is quite well known and

2. we can render it and

3. most sources use it and

4. the alternate-typography people happened to have won that battle for that article, or else the typography's never been challenged.

Hence eBay, Yahoo! but Macy's rather than Macy*s. Fun (band) not "fun.", India Arie not India.Arie. Toys "R" Us has the quotes but not the backwards R. We never changed Prince (musician) to File:Prince logo.svg [Display of actual non-free image removed per WP:NFCC#9. DMacks (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)] -- couldn't if we wanted to. OTOH Da Youngsta's have their apostrophe, and several other groups have odd typography here, probably for reason #4. And so on; it's a bit of a hodgepodge.

Your entity falls very much sort of the fame of Yahoo and Ebay, so I wouldn't bend our rules for it (in fact if it was up to me I wouldn't ben our rules even for Yahoo and Ebay, and I bet others agree). You have #2 and #3 going for you, but not #1.

I don't see us using titles for entities that we aren't going to use in the text. And I don't see us using constructions like "W^m Crichton & C^o" in the texr any more than we are going to use "&^c." or refer to dates as "the 19th instant" or describe entities as moving thither, or like anachronisms, even if our sources do so.

The main virtues of a title are to help the reader find the article and to quickly understand what the article is about when they do find it. I don't see where the "W:m Crichton & C:o" helps that. I would assume some sort of typo and other readers might also. Herostratus (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that W^m Crichton & C^o and W:m Crichton & C:o follow the contemporary spelling rules without intentional pecularity. The only problem is the Wikipedia practice of reserving all W: articles for the technical pages. If Crichton's given name would have been Joseph instead of William, the company name would have been most likely spelled J:os Crichton & C:o and the naming problem would not exist. In my opinion Wikipedia's self-created naming limitations should not be applied in cost of correctness.

Is there workaround for naming an article starting with W: so that it would not lead to a technical page? --Gwafton (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Correctness" on Wikipedia is not based on what the company's logo does... "correctness" is based on what reliable sources that are independent of the company do. It is extremely rare to find sources that abbreviate names using a colon. Joseph is most commonly abbreviated as "Jos.", William as "Wm." and Company as "Co." Follow the sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I do understand what the requirement of using independent sources mean and what it is for, but applying it in this case is quite odd, as the people in the company is understandably expected to know best how its name should be spelled. Although they have used W^m Crichton & C^o on their logo they have spelled the name as W:m Crichton & C:o on newspaper advert (linked above). I can also dig old newspaper articles where the company name is mentioned, as some old newspapers are scanned and can be found in Internet.

I think that we should not rename an old company according the modern spelling. If we did so, then also Wärtsilä should be called Värtsilä because W was replaced by V in Finnish in some spelling reform. --Gwafton (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper articles with name W:m Crichton & C:o mentioned are listed here:

• Åbo Tidning 6 May 1888, page 2, bottom of the 4th column: [1]
• Åbo Underrättelser 6 May 1888, page 2, 2nd half of the 4th column (under title Ångbåtsutskjutning): [2]
• Åbo Tidning 26 October 1884, page 2, beginning of the 3rd column (under title Nytt Tullångfartyg): [3]

Is more third-party evidence needed? --Gwafton (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You're being pedantic. There's no "one right answer" to most questions like this. You make a reasonable case, but one that I don't agree with and so far it looks like no one else does either, so I'd consider letting it go. The only purpose of titles is to serve the reader, and sticking colons in doesn't do this IMO. As to how to actually request this fix, see Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests, although I wouldn't request developer effort on this if people aren't going to actually countenance it being implemented. Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nickname in quotation marks in title

Why is it that a title formatted as First "nickname" Last like Ed "Too Tall" Jones" is discouraged by WP:NICKNAME? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, having anything in quotation should be the exception, not the rule. (1) It is not formal, and formal should be preferred, all else being near equal, because formal is well associated with doing things properly. (2) The quotation marks are being used as scare quotes, making is ambiguous if it is the accepted name or not. It means it is fuzzy space between a source-used COMMONNAME and not. Better to jump one way or the other and be unambiguous. He is Ed Jones or Too Tall Jones or Too Tall, just don't try to go two bob each way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Names likes Ed "Too Tall" Jones should be discouraged, with lots of use in sources required to justify such a title. Ed "Too Tall" Jones has source use to justify use of the title normally discouraged. The word "discouraged" is appropriate, it appropriately leaves open the door to justified exceptions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have to disagree somewhat. This can not (and should not) be decided on a one-size-fits-all basis... it needs to be decided on a subject by subject basis, following the principle of Recognizability. It really depends on what the sources do. In some cases, the sources overwhelmingly include the nickname (in scare quotes) when discussing the subject... and when that occurs Wikipedia should follow the sources and do so as well (as that will be the most recognizable variation of the name). If the sources don't (or if they are more mixed) then neither should we. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Per Blueboar, and per the specific example mentioned, Ed "Too Tall" Jones is almost always referred to, by reliable sources, as Ed "Too Tall" Jones. He's not commonly called Ed Jones, nor is he commonly called Too Tall Jones. He's commonly called Ed "Too Tall" Jones. Follow the sources rules all. He's common name includes both the first name Ed, the nickname in quotes, and the last name Jones. See Here for example. I did a search for Ed Jones NFL, and you can clearly see that the preponderance of reliable sources use Ed "Too Tall" Jones. --Jayron32 16:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you do if an individual is often referred to with a nickname and their real name, but never really as "first 'alias' last". Also, is there some sort of relevant discussion in the talk page archive, I seem to have trouble finding one.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean a situation where the sources ignore the first name? for example where "Joseph Q. Smith" is commonly called "Lucky Smith"?

In such a case, we would apply WP:COMMONNAME... the article title would be Lucky Smith (as that will be the most recognizable option). His more formal name should be mentioned prominently in the opening sentence of the lead paragraph, and perhaps linked as a redirect... but the title would follow the most recognizable option. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Prime example being "Weird Al" Yankovic, as that is how it is formatted on all his releases , etc. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• 'The word "discouraged" is appropriate, it appropriately leaves open the door to justified exceptions' addresses the idea that 'This can not (and should not) be decided on a one-size-fits-all basis'; i.e., the wiggle-room in "discouraged" means it is not a one-size-fits-all line item. It's discouraged in part because hardly anyone is referred to this way as their WP:COMMONNAME. People will generally refer to either "Ed Jones" or "Too Tall Jones", not "Ed 'Too Tall' Jones", and when some sources do use a longer form for clarity, they do not do so consistently with regard to formatting, and may render it "Ed (Too Tall) Jones", "'Too Tall' Ed Jones", "Too Tall (Ed) Jones", etc., etc. In addition to the other reasons given.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  Actually, you picked the wrong example. As a lifelong NFL fan, I can confirm that Ed "Too Tall" Jones is pretty much always called Ed "Too Tall" Jones, exactly like that. What you say in the sentence "People will generally..." may apply to many people with many nicknames. Not in this one case. Here's a modern video by Sports Illustrated. Here's a famous GEICO ad, Here's an interview from an local morning show. I can find dozens of other examples. You can occasionally find people just calling him Ed Jones or Too Tall Jones, but the preponderance of uses is as Ed "Too Tall" Jones, both speaking and written. --Jayron32 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Beg to differ. A few seconds on Google demonstrates otherwise [4]. The #2 and #3 results are just Too Tall Jones without "Ed" (and without quotations marks or parentheses), and the rest of the results show various formats, just as I said they would, even when they use the long version: Ed Too Tall Jones, Ed 'Too Tall' Jones, Ed (Too Tall) Jones, Ed "Too Tall" Jones, all on the first page of results. The subject himself appears to prefer Ed Too Tall Jones without any markup, judging from his official website (though I know as a Web developer that sometimes such decisions are left up to the developer – if we ask about some typographic question of this sort and don't get an answer, we insert what we prefer and get back to work, allowing the client to correct it later).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if we're looking at the same results. There are several forms indeed, but the ones with Too Tall within single or double quotation marks make up around 80% of results, and even the two with just Too Tall Jones refer to him as Ed "Too Tall" Jones in the first sentence. His (?) Twitter account is titled Ed 'Too Tall' Jones, and his (?) Facebook account is Ed "Too Tall" Jones. And double quotation marks are generally Wikipedia in-house style in such cases, providing IMO an easy winner. No such user (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I was casually looking at the credits for the 2015 film The Wedding Ringer and whoa, there's Ed "Too Tall" Jones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) I added a short clarification. While I'm wary of instruction creep, I think the issue has been raised frequently enough to deserve a coverage in the guideline. For example, it was raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Use of quotation marks in names back in April. No such user (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It does come up frequently. I've suggested several times before that we need to take a programmatic, algorithmic approach to this. Basically something like this:

• If the non-legal name is a nickname that is not derived from the legal name, put it in quotation marks before the surname: Alexis Barton "Chicken-whisperer" Chen
• If it is a nickname derived from part of the legal name, put it in quotes after the modified part: Alexis "Big Ali" Barton Chen.
• If it is based on the surname, put it before the surname Alexis Barton "Chensterator" Chen.
• If it is a diminutive or abbreviation of part of the legal name, put it in parentheses after the modified part: Alexis (Alex) Barton Chen, Alexis Barton (Bart) Chen, Alexis Barton (Aybee) Chen
• If it is a pseudonynm used in place of the legal name and not used with all or part of the legal name, give it separately and without quotation marks, whether based on the name or not: Alexis Barton Chen, known professionally as DJ ABC, Alexis Barton Chen, later known as Janet Garcia-Chen.
• Do the same for someone conventionally known by their initials and surname only: Alexis Barton Chen, better known as A. B. Chen.
• Do the same for nickname constructions if they are the common name; enclose a nickname but not a simple diminutive or abbreviation in quotation marks: Alexis Barton Chen, better known as "Big Al" Chen, Alexis Barton Chen, best known as Lexi Chen.
• Give epithets (e.g. media labels for then-unknown serial killers) separately and with quotation marks: Alexis Barton Chen, labeled the "Oakland Mangler" in the press before being identified and convicted. Do not capitalize "the" or include it within the quotation marks in such constructions (it is not an integral part of the nickname, and would be dropped in constructions like Alexis B. "Oakland Mangler" Chen).
• Reverse the order and drop the quotation marks if the epithet is the common name: The Hillside Strangler is the media epithet for two men, Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono, who were convicted of. [I would prefer to keep the quotation marks, but our extant article at Hillside Strangler doesn't use them, so I'm going with that for now.]

It could be made a bit simpler but perhaps a bit more reader-annoying to drop the "put it ... after the modified part" rules, and always put it before the surname. This would often separate something like "Big Al" from the name it was derived from ("Alexis" in these examples), which could be awkward. "James Bartolomeo (Jim) McDougal" just doesn't work well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The examples regarding the diminutive/abbreviation and initials would not be needed as the article would be named after their stage or common name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the above suggestions are about what to do with the full name in the lead sentence. The title should follow WP:common name. But shouldn't this discussion be at MOS:BLP? I started a discussion like that just yesterday at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#People_commonly_known_by_nicknames and was pointed over here. Darx9url (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting RM

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The RM at Talk:Twentse Landgans#Requested move 10 November 2015 has been relisted for lack of participation. It involves conflicting interpretations of WP:NATURALDAB, WP:COMMON, WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:USEENGLISH, and several other policy points all at once.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ArbCom decision will directly affect "language activism"

WP:AT (and WP:MOS, and WP:RM) are frequently beset by language change advocacy, and we'll shortly have something to use against this particular form of PoV pushing. The upcoming ArbCom decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision: The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie [sic] and mutual respect among the contributors. In particular, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs; Wikipedia can only record what sources conclude has been the result of social change, but it cannot catalyze that change.

While that's not an AT/MOS case in particular, this is a general statement of principle, and its reasoning obviously applies broadly, including to various sorts of campaigning that are brought to AT and MOS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Time to follow the rules…

I move that:

• Lady Gaga be removed as redundant to the Bono example (both have a completely different name than their real one)
• Replace with "Sean Combs (not: Sean John Combs, Puff Daddy, Puffy, Diddy, or P. Diddy)" as example of when not to use fluctuating and/or exhaustive stage names
• Group by name types: shortened names, nicknames, and stage names
• Add "The United Kingdom" as example of dropping commonly used definite articles

Thoughts?    DKqwerty    07:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Oppose, a prior criticism was that the list contained too few women;
2. Oppose, a prior criticism was that this list contained already too many WP:PSEUDONYM related examples;
3. Oppose, nicknames and stagenames fall under the same WP:PSEUDONYM guidance (as if WP:NCP has nothing else...); also oppose qualifying "Bill Clinton" as a nickname
4. Oppose, the short list of "common name" examples is not intended to rehash/summarize/dumb down/... subsequent guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so keep Lady Gaga or Madonna and dump Bono. And I don't know of any female artists with as erratic a stage name a Sean Combs. And Combs is an example of when not to use stage name/pseudonym, which is an important distinction. For Bill, the infobox for William qualifies it as a nickname. Not sure I understand your final opposition point. DKqwerty 09:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't even know whether Sean Combs qualifies as a "common name", so shouldn't be included in this list that illustrates the "common name" principle with a few examples. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can be added as prose to name change? My reason for wanting to add it, again, is to clarify that when multiple names may be "common" to different people, name change guide below kicks in.    DKqwerty    09:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This list of examples should be made shorter, not longer with titles and subtitles. People don't need an endless list of examples to understand this concept. I think a single example from each of the current categories should suffice. TheFreeloader (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)