Wikipedia talk:Article titles

National varieties of English

Does the WP:TITLECHANGES section on changing the national variety of English in an article title need to be clarified?

Article titles which have to choose between two national varieties of English (Yogurt vs. Yoghurt, Color vs. Colour, Humor vs. Humour, and so on) are often subject to perennial move discussions which are often lengthy, contentious, and brutal wastes of time as they rarely resolve anything. Our manual of style currently says, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. [...] If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." I think the point that needs to be clarified is what makes a title "stable": editors disagree whether stable means "not moved" versus "no move discussions". Or perhaps "default to the title used by the first major contributor..." is being interpreted as a "good reason to change it", absent any other reasons.

The problem this creates is being exemplified in yet another move discussion at Talk:Humour where it's been suggested that the title is unstable because of the repeated move discussions over a long period (the page has actually been at this title since 13 May 2007), and as a result it's being argued that the "default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" applies, and then there is debate about which version is the first non-stub version. I would like to see that confusion resolved one way or the other, but I'm not sure how to do it, and I don't know what the original intent was.

I suggest these changes (marked up as best I could):

• to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining the existing variety: When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety.
• to Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering title changes: If an article title has been stablenot been changed for a long time, and there is no goodother reason to change it, it should not be changed. [...] If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stubthe tie is broken by the first contributor to introduce test written in a particular English variety.

I think these changes will help to resolve conflicts about which variety to use, so that we don't go back and forth endlessly and have editors repeatedly bringing up the same move proposals over and over again. Thoughts? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – The guidelines and policies cited here are already clear, and the proposed changes have implications that are less than savoury. I strongly oppose any wording about a "tie". This is not a competition or a debate. RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – in fact the most relevant policy for combining ENGVAR and TITLECHANGE is at WP:TITLEVAR, which for some reason or another is ignored in the setup of this RfC. TITLEVAR doesn't make the stub/non-stub distinction, nor does it make the stable/non-stable distinction, just "don't change from one variety of English to another". BTW, it is a link given in the boilerplate of the ENGVAR section. If you want to initiate a WP:RM over it, fine, but "don't change from the very first article title" and "don't change from the current article title" should be major arguments in such discussion unless there is a more appropriate "third name" solution, as explained in the TITLEVAR policy. If listing and relisting WP:RMs continues without progress, it is probably best to negotiate a moratorium on the article's talk page, which has been done with success in a number of cases. From this viewpoint this RfC looks frivolous to me: first appreciate what is in the policy before proposing to rewrite it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (mostly). I appreciate the requester's goal, but I'm skeptical about the suggested changes. If the aim is to reduce the frequency of debates over ENGVAR titles, simply adjusting the wording of this guideline may not accomplish a lot; my impression is that many squabbles have less to do with the guidelines than with personal preferences for one ENGVAR over another, which leads to poorly-supported RMs repeatedly popping up regardless of any sound basis in policy. One change I'd support that might actually help reduce the noise would be to bar anonymous IPs from initiating move requests. The last two at Humour were started in this way, and rightly or wrongly they raise suspicions of shenanigans, which hurts debate.

  The suggestion to discourage retitling if the page hasn't been moved for a long time isn't bad and avoids some of the subjectivity of what "stable" means, but I'd be concerned that users who support a move for which there's no good basis might take that as a motivation to preemptively retitle a page, even if it gets immediately reverted, simply in order to destabilize the article and claim standing under the letter of the guideline. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose in favor of WP:TITLEVAR. Changes in policies could help resolve RM debates (or do the opposite!), or they might not make a whit of difference if the participants don't even read the policies to begin with. I'm sure which outcome is which could very well

I just want to note that while I mostly agree with Huwmanbeing, I also disagree with his suggestion that we bar IPs from initiating RM discussion. That seems kind of elitist, in a vacuum of any other evidence of ill intent. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Mostly oppose. If the article title hasn't been changed for a long time, then keep it as it is. Also in favour of WP:TITLEVAR. Tom29739 ^[talk] 13:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC).

Cyrillic letter titles

Are Cyrillic lettered titles acceptable? see Talk:Choba B CCCP -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), but that wouldn't be of much help here, as well for that not being an accepted guideline, as for "transliteration" in this sense not really being applicable for an album name that got well-established currency in English language reliable sources in a different format.

The big problem with the article is its lack of references, not its title. Maybe first sort out the huge WP:V problem on the article, then after that revisit the article title question. Maybe this is one of the exceptional cases where giving the article title in capitals (as it is on its cover) is justified, while then the Latin letters/Cyrillic letters distinction would more or less dissipate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." - W:Naming Conventions ∫ A Y^™ 18:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

DB Schenker Rail - Company has changed name

As of the 2nd of March, 2016 DB Schenker Rail (UK) has become DB Cargo UK. Additionally, DB Schenker Rail has become DB Cargo. According to the press release linked above,

"Global logistics will continue to use "DB Schenker" going forward, while rail freight transport will use "DB Cargo." Although we are separating our logistics and rail businesses from each other by name, we will of course continue to offer integrated rail transport and logistics services throughout Europe where it makes sense for the market and our customers."

Furthermore, the domain listed for both of these (www.rail.dbschenker.de / www.rail.dbschenker.co.uk) now redirect to [dbcargo.com]. Should these pages, alongside the Subsidaries listed in the former's infobox that have pages, have their name changed to DB Cargo (Country)? Thanks. ∫ A Y^™ 17:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Artist name as disambiguation regarding non-notable song titles

When a song or album is the only song or album to have a standalone article on Wikipedia, but other songs or albums of the same name are listed on the disambiguation page for that name per MOS:DABMENTION, should the article title of the notable song or album include the artist name?

Some songs and albums are the only song or album with its name to meet notability guidelines and have an article on Wikipedia, but other songs or albums of the same name are listed on the disambiguation page per MOS:DABMENTION. The current situation on the inclusion of artist names in article titles is inconsistent. A few examples of no artist names in article titles include Umbrella (song), Pillowtalk (song), and Anti (album); they are the only songs and albums of their names to be notable enough for a standalone article on Wikipedia, although there are other non-notable songs/albums of the same name listed at Umbrella (disambiguation)#Songs, Pillow talk (disambiguation)#Songs, and Anti#Music respectively. A few examples of artist names in article titles include Chandelier (Sia song), Blackstar (David Bowie song), and Title (Meghan Trainor album); similarly, they are the only songs and albums of their names to be notable enough for a standalone article on Wikipedia, but Chandelier (song), Blackstar (song) and Title (album) redirect to disambiguation pages, where other non-notable songs/albums of the same name are listed. WP:PRECISION states According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. WP:NCM states Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (American band), X (Australian band)). The dispute arises on whether non-notable songs and albums that lack standalone articles can be considered "article topics". I think we can all agree that the current inconsistency is not ideal, and I am starting a request for comment for a result that should apply to most usual cases. sst✈ 15:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Use the shorter version There's no need to include the artist name if that is the only notable recorded work. If an article is subsequently created for another work of the same name, then the disambiguation can be specified in the title.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Shorter version - 3Family6's explanation above sums up my thoughts exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I just want to note that we have had several RFCs on this issue in the past... the last one took place about a year ago (if I remember correctly). While I don't mind revisiting the issue (it is certainly possible that consensus may have changed since then), those previous RFCs (and the consensus that emerged from them) are what set the our current practices. I urge everyone to search the archives (for this page, for other relevant guideline pages, as well as the Village Pump) to familiarize yourselves with those previous discussions. It will save everyone a lot of needless repetition of effort. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • If there is already consensus on this specific issue, I don't see it in RM discussions. sst✈ 00:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Shorter version per 3Family6; also, we can always move a page if circumstances change. ^{Recruited by the feedback request service} -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Precision is better than ambiguity – E. g. Pillowtalk (song) could mean any of several songs by that title that are listed in WP articles. Why not disambiguate with artist name rather than incomplete disambiguation in such cases? Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  Dicklyon But there are two song articles with the title "Pillow Talk." What's being discussed here is the case where there is only one song. If there is only one article with a certain title, why do we need to disambiguate more than needed?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was offered as an example above; perhaps someone made a new article since then? Or one has a space and one doesn't, in which case disambiguation is still needed, and way better than distinguishing to tiny differences. How about Umbrella (song), then? I see five other songs, but not with their own articles? Disambiguating would be good there. Dicklyon (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• KiSS Keep It Short and Simple. Always if possible. If you have a strong reason to make titles longer and more complicated feel free to do so, but add only few words (only 1 if u can) to avoid disambiguation. 100% agree with 3family6. Kind regards from Valdarno.  Klaas `Z4␟` V 09:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - there seems to be some confusion here between notability and whether there's an article or not. I don't think too many people would dispute that a non-notable song should not be considered when disambiguating some other song that is notable. However, others are saying "wait for the article to be created". That's a different issue. Some notable songs don't yet have articles, but certainly could (because they're notable). Other notable songs nonetheless redirect to the album on which they are contained, for WP:NOPAGE reasons. In those cases, per WP:PARTIALDAB, the full artist name should be spelled out even where there is only one song article of that name on the Wiki, because the other notable songs of the same name will be listed at the dab page, and the album or redlink is a legitimate target for that title.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think too many people would dispute that a non-notable song should not be considered when disambiguating some other song that is notable. That does not seem to be the case currently at RM discussions. sst✈ 11:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Right. I hope I can be recognized as part of that "too many" that would prefer precision to ambiguity even when only one of the songs has an article. The "shortest possible name" approach puts zero value on precision; I think this is not a good way to balance the WP:CRITERIA. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

      But Dicklyon, why do we need to do this to achieve precision for a notable song vs a non-notable song, when we are appending (song) on the end, but there is apparently no need to do so if the song is already primary topic for the whole concept. For example, there may be some non-notable song somewhere called Hey Jude, yet we don't feel the need to append (Beatles song) on to the main article Hey Jude. But when it comes to something like Thriller (song), supposing there were non-notable album tracks with the same name, you are telling us we should rename the song Thriller (Michael Jackson song) because of precision. I'm not sure why the Hey Jude is precise, whereas the Thriller (song) is not. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • There is a difference between notability and whether a subject has an article, I agree. I just think that, unless there is an active link, such as redirect or something, there's no need to disambiguate more than "song" or "album" as there is only one article, unless the creation of another article is imminent. For instance, there was no need to disambiguate Stickman's Tunnel Vision album more than "album" until I created the Tunnel Rats album of the same name years later.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Question. Does the same apply when a song or album article is the only topic across WP (i.e., not just among songs/albums) with an active link? So, if we have a dab page with multiple entries, and only one of them has a bluelink, should that article or the dab page get the basename? See Gotta Have It for an example. Dohn joe (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• There has been established a hard won consensus that disambiguation terms should generally only be as precise as needed to disambiguate one existing article from other existing articles. I don't think as a general rule there should be made an exception from this for articles about songs. So if no other article has the same name as the song title, the article about the song should not have a disambiguation term. If only articles about things that are not songs have the same name, then the article about the song should have the disambiguation term (song). And if there are articles about songs with the same name then it should have the disambiguation term ([artist name] song). The only case where I can think of where it might be reasonable to deviate from this rule would be when there is only one song that has an article about it, but there is doubt whether that song is the primary topic for that name. If a large proportion of the people who search for the given song title are actually looking for another song than the one they end up being directed to, then it might be more useful to have them directed to a disambiguation page, where they can instead find links to articles about the albums where the songs of that title appear on. TheFreeloader (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  What "hard won consensus" are you referring to? Please could you point to the place where this was established. And establishing policies on Wikipedia are not a question of winning or losing, simply what is best for the readership. If it was that hard to win the consensus, perhaps it wasn't the correct one to start with? On your specific point, again, I would say that it is not a question of whether there's an article on the subject, but on whether it's notable. At MOS:DABRL we are given a fictitious example of a Flibbygibby (architecture), a notable concept which appears on the Flibbygibby disambig page, but doesn't yet have an article. Now let's suppose that this is the notable Flibbygibby (Kylie Minogue song), that doesn't yet have an article. Would we call some other song Flibbygibby (song), knowing all the while that there's a Kylie song with the exact same name awaiting an article?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  It is consensus because it is the policy. One of the 5 naming criteria is conciseness, which is specified as meaning: "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.". This is a hard won consensus because it is a policy that has been up for discussion many times, and have been fought hard over. But, of course, if you think this policy needs to change to benefit our readership, then you are welcome to start a new discussion to change it. Consensuses can change. About your examples, I think it comes down to whether those subjects are primary topics for those names. As I said above, I think there would be a reasonable case for having the disambiguation term "(song)" redirect to a disambiguation page if it is not clear that the song that happens to have an article is the primary topic for that name. In that situation is would be useful for readers to have easy access to links to the albums or artists also associated with other songs of that name.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• If the Kylie Minogue song is notable, create a stub for it. Until sources are looked for, we don't know that it is notable. bd2412 T 18:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would generally propose that if an article on an album exists, but songs on the album are not individually notable, then redirects should be made from the song titles to the album. If the song titles are ambiguous, redirect from a disambiguated song title to the album. bd2412 T 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with the primary topic aspect of it. There are lots of songs that are performed or popularized as covers and renditions so the disambiguation to the original artist would add more confusion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)