Wikipedia talk:Article titles

WP:CONCISE

Full disclosure: I came to this page again from a discussion at Talk:May 1968 events in France. This edit by me is not related to any of the arguments from that discussion, however. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2019‎ (UTC)

RfC on the use of dash-separated titles for sports events

This is a proposal to explicitly permit the use of dash-separated titles for sports events, where such a construction is presently inconsistent with WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Background

The previous RFC on dash-separated titles for sports events was initiated to address matters of capitalisation in such article titles. Dash-separated article titles are extensively used for recurrent sporting tournaments, such as the Olympic games or annual events, where there are multiple events being played for. They are used for an article on a particular event being played for in a particular tournament's year - eg 2014 US Open – Men's Singles. That article is about the "men's singles" event being played for at the 2014 US Open. The article title has been described as being a "title – subtitle" construction. This construction distinguishes different events played for within a particular tournament's year. It also distinguishes the same event being played for across different tournament years. The dashed construction inherently has a disambiguation function. The "title – subtitle" also creates a sub-article relationship.

Well through the course of the earlier RfC, it was identified that dash-separated titles for sports events are explicitly inconsistent with prescriptive advice at WP:AT.

• At WP:QUALIFIER: Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages.
• At WP:TITLEFORMAT: Do not create subsidiary articles: Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently.

Furthermore, at WP:TSC, we are advised to avoid the use of the dash in article titles. This is because of the need to create a redirect from the title that would use the hyphen in place of the dash. This is because keyboards do not provide accessibility to the dash characters.

The former RfC reached "no consensus" on any matters.

Outline of RfC

The RfC is presented as three questions. Please indicate your !vote for each question in the section following each section. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Rather than amend individual sections of WP:AT, the ultimate intention is to add a section to WP:AT that explicitly permits dash-separated titles for sports events. While the second and third questions might assume prior support, support is not presumed. To be clear, support for an outcome at one question cannot reasonably be construed or inferred to be support for an outcome at another question. Participants are therefore encouraged to respond to all of the questions (even though they might disagree with the first question) without fear that their views might be misconstrued. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

General comments

Hi, Dicklyon, Cinderella157, Fyunck(click), Wjemather, Lee Vilenski, Amakuru, Ravenswing, Sod25k, Sportsfan77777, Joseph2302, Jayron32, GhostOfDanGurney, Iffy, GraemeLeggett, Mjquinn_id, GoodDay, SMcCandlish, Tony1, Montanabw, Kaffe42, BilledMammal, Herostratus, Thryduulf, SmokeyJoe, HawkAussie - you have contributed to the previous RfC and may wish to comment here. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Sod25m per new name. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedian Hyphen Luddite. Always avoid dashes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe, you would then disagree with question 1. Might you please place that there? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC) P.S. Do you have an opinion on the other two questions if the consensus was to support dashes? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Let me think about it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Abstain from all further discussion on the matter. This does not appear to be an issue relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport, the wikiproject from which I was canvassed here via this edit which I later found to be a copy/paste job. I emphasize my opinion that this is not an issue pertaining to this wikiproject, contrary to the canvass attempt stating otherwise. As the discussion I participated in is closed, I cannot strike my !vote, otherwise, I would. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna need some article examples, for me to fully understand what's being proposed. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, All sorts of sports articles that use the format: 2014 US Open – Men's Singles. See also examples in the previous RfC (above) eg - Tennis at the 2011 Games of the Small States of Europe – Men's singles, 2015 IBSF World Snooker Championship – Men's and Shooting at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 meter running deer, single and double shot. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Question 1: permitting dash-separated titles for sports events

Should two part dash-separated titles be explicitly permitted for sports event articles?

This question goes to specifically to acknowledging dash-separated titles for sports events as an exception to WP:QUALIFIER. The question does not assume an order of the two parts about the dash. This is addressed in the next question.

Please respond: Agree to explicitly support or Disagree to explicitly not support.

Discussion, comments, !votes

Comment: If two part dash-separated titles for sports event articles are such a good idea (as suggested in the previous RfC), there should be no issue with agreeing with the proposition. The dash construction distinguishes different events played for within a particular tournament's year. It also distinguishes the same event being played for across different tournament years. One might argue that this does not constitute disambiguation and does not create a conflict with WP:QUALIFIER. To my mind, that would be splitting hairs. If it is such a good idea, then it would be much better to simply resolve the matter by agreement with the question posed (or not). Cinderella157 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

From the discussion in the previous RfC (above) it became reasonably clear that the dashed construction is not a WP:COMMONNAME. It is not a construction found in the natural language of running text in sources, though it may be found be found in headings such as tables and in web pages. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Agree. Dash-separated titles should be permitted but not required. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree. Sporting events are not a special case that require a specific exclusion from standard policy; also WP:CREEP. If anything dashes should be more strongly discouraged than they are, and used only as a last resort when plain English and all else fails. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Agree - agree with Thryduulf as permitted but not required. It seems arbitrary that it should or shouldn't be allowed. A little flexibility is a good thing so as not to look like a cookie cutter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Do not do anything that encourages dashes beyond following their use in the sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as it's a perfectly natural way of writing the article titles, and clarifying the different events in a tournament. Putting () like a disambiguator would be wrong in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree – The dashed titles (for sports events at least) are generally sub-articles, specializing the main title to a subset of the competitions, which are explicitly not a good thing in titles. We should find a better way; per my comment at the bottom, it appears to me that the sub-events are not independently notable in most cases, so it would seem better to just merge up to the main article. It would not be too big to include men's singles, mixed doubles, etc. all in the one tournament article. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - these are unnatural constructions that don't appear in written prose. Is there any sourcing that uses this format? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi GraemeLeggett, there was quite a discussion about this in the previous RfC. The bottom line is that there was no evidence of sources using the format in prose (for at least one instance, see [search on]: You have not provide evidence of actual usage of the dashed construction in prose. and associated discussion). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Agree – I don't see anything wrong with permitting dashes in titles as it seems to me the most natural way to title these sports events articles. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's nothing special about the topics, we already have WP:COMMADIS telling us what to do here, and the dash constructions are unnatural (e.g. not how sources generally refer to these topics). The weird dash business is also causing follow-on disputation, such as whether (and what) to capitalize after the dash. Just get rid of the dashes, and it all evaporates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  It all evaporates? Really? So instead of arguing about should it be "2014 US Open - Men's Singles" or "2014 US Open – Men's singles" instead it would simply be "2014 US Open Men's Singles"? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Of course not, and please do not engage in silly reductio ad absurdum fallacies like this. See WP:COMMADIS: it would obviously be "2014 US Open, men's singles" (given that this is not a proper name, so there is no reason to over-capitalize, and we have a policy to use sentence case in article titles). "US Open" is the proper name here. See also MOS:SPORTCAPS which further addresses this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hang on, what? So now you're proposing removing the dash and replacing it with a comma? That's dreadful, and has all the supposed drawbacks of a dash while also being less legible. I had assumed that if the dash is removed, you simply have a common phrase 2014 US Open men's singles, which might be OK but would not be my preferred option. A comma is right out, though.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Agree . I think last RfC that was linked here is sufficient to cover this.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree I had expected there to be strong support for the proposition, with good reasons being offered as to why we should agree to the proposition. This certainly hasn't happened and any support is largely a matter of opinion. Do we need this dashed construction. The answer is no. The existing accepted ways of dealing with and distinguishing similar and related articles are quite adequate and sufficient for the task. As SMcC observes, the dash construction is not "natural" language and it is not how sources generally refer to the subjects in running text. The only thing going for them is that they are a consistent for. But this is not unique to a construction that uses a dash. As a technical matter, we are advised at WP:TSC to avoid the use of dashes in article titles because they require a redirect from the hyphen form. At least one editor in the previous RfC implied that we should avoid an overhead of redirects. I have left my comment late because I wanted to see if there were actually any good reasons for and against. Perhaps the strongest argument against the construction is that it has led to the proliferation of articles forks (sub articles) where it is very questionable that they meet WP:GNG. If anything, they are news but WP is NOTNEWS. If written as a summary of the key points (which is what WP requires), they are not so large to justify splitting out a separate article but they are filled with pretty much EVERYTHING despite WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Agree - as per the status quo, which was reiterated and confirmed in the previous RFC, dashes in these tennis events are absolutely fine and aid legibility and WP:RECOGNIZE for readers. There is nothing in WP:AT which forbids their use.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• 'Agree I think it's clearer. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Question 2: ordering in a dash-separated title for sports events

This question is contingent on a consensus supporting question 1. The present usage of dash-separated title for sports events is in the form of "Title - subtitle" (eg 2014 US Open – Men's Singles). This creates an inconsistency with WP:TITLEFORMAT. The options proposed are:

Option 1. That dash-separated titles for sports events shall be in the form of the example 2014 US Open – Men's Singles. This is an explicit exception to the inconsistency with WP:TITLEFORMAT (ie it permits what can be considered a sub-article relationship).

Option 2. That dash-separated titles for sports events shall be in the form of the example Men's Singles – 2014 US Open. This is explicitly complies with WP:TITLEFORMAT. It does not imply a subarticle relationship.

Option 3. That either format in option 1 or option 2 be permitted. This is an explicity permits an exception to WP:TITLEFORMAT but does not prescribe the format to be used.

Discussion, comments, !votes

• Option 2 doesn't make any sense. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, if you think that Men's Singles – 2014 US Open as a title makes no sense, then don't !vote for it. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure you didn't intend to capitalize Singles here. Same as you'd do with brackets, Men's singles (2014 US Open). Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I did actually, but not because I agree with the capitalisation in either case (options 1 or 2). Option 2 is a transposition of the terms about the dash as compared with option 1, where option 1 is presently the usual format. If I had changed the capitalisation upon the transposition, it might have implied that option 2 was more than a simple transposition. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Why do you think Option 2 doesn't imply a subarticle relationship, but Option 1 does? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, if the men's singles played at the 2014 US Open is the primary topic then placing "men's singles" first makes it clear that the men's singles event is the primary topic, while the "title-subtitle" construction is inherently an article-subarticle relationship. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• The dash in Option 1 doesn't necessarily imply a subarticle relationship. Some people (e.g. who only care about the Men's Singles) will treat the draw article as the main article and neglect the article on the tournament itself. The dash structure is meant to highlight which draw the article covers. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, You can argue against whether or not there is an inconsistency with WP:TITLEFORMAT or you could !vote to support one of the options (option 1 I take it), which will ultimately go to resolve the matter of order. If the dashed construction is such a good idea (as you argue), it will get strong support. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• my only suggestion was to use brackets, rather than dashes. Any reason why this wasn't included? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, per the outline of the RfC, this question is contingent on support for the dashed construction and how things would then be ordered about the dash. Brackets would not be applied with the dash as well. If you don't want brackets instead of a dash, then you would disagree with Question 1. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: One could argue that the "title-subtitle" presently used in the two part dashed constructions do not create an "article-subarticle" relationship. To my mind, that would be splitting hairs. If the "title-subtitle" construction is such a good idea, it would be ultimately be much better to reach an agreement (option 1) that it is a good idea (or not - in which case, there are two alternatives presented). Cinderella157 (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3. What makes sense for one event might not make sense for other events. Flexibility is needed to allow for the fact that the real world is messy and inconsistent. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - allow both although I can't for the life of me figure who would ever use "Men's Singles – 2014 US Open." That seems to defy logic and would be against all sourcing. You can find "2014 US Open Men's Singles", "2014 US Open – Men's Singles", "2014 US Open men's singles", "2014 US Open – Men's singles" , and various incarnations of those. But not some awkward thing with Men's Singles first. However if some weird tournament does do it that way it should certainly be permitted here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, other than I oppose using dashes here at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 seems most appropriate for Question 2 in my opinion, though I am also open to the possibility of option 3. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 For the example title, 2014 US Open – Men's Singles, the subject of the article is the men's singles event (that was played at the 2014 US Open). As a clear principle, the title of an article should clearly indicate the primary subject of the article. Gramatically, it should be the subject of a naming phrase. In more naturally constructed phrases, potential names for this sample event are: "Men's singles at the 2014 US Open" or "2014 US Open men's singles". In both cases, "men's singles" is grammatically the subject. Using parentheses, or a comma in a title, such as Turkey (bird) or Boston, Massachusetts creates a parenthetic phrase. Note that the comma is not closed in the example but would be in running text with either another comma or a full-stop if it were at the end of a sentence. A parenthetic phrase, while it adds additional information, can be omitted and still be grammatically correct. It might even be redundant (as in the case of Boston), depending on the context. In each case, the "subject" precedes the parenthetic phrase. A dash also creates a parenthetic phrase by what follows. So, in the example 2014 US Open – Men's Singles, the grammatical subject being represented is the "2014 US Open" but the primary topic of the article is the "men's singles". The dash, as used in option 1 creates a mismatch between the primary topic of the article and the grammatical subject in the article title. The reverse form represented by option 2 (eg "Men's singles - 2014 US Open") does not suffer the same inconsistency. The form of option 1 also has issues with searching and indexing on the primary topic of the article (eg "men's singles) since searching and indexing is done from the head of a text string and the form of option 1 places the primary topic (the key term) at the end of the text string. Compare this with searching or indexing for Little Rock in Arkansas based on a title of "Arkensas, Little Rock" v Little Rock, Arkansas. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Thryduulf. We should not prescribe anything one way or the other, although for tennis events in particular, option 1 is certainly the status quo and should be stuck with. Those titles are not disambiguated, but simply reflect common parlance and recognizability - the event first, then the subevent.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 is natural. People are usualy looking for a particular year's event. the worst choice is 3, to have it inconsistent, which helps nobody. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Question 3: amending WP:AT

This question and subsequent questions are contingent on outcomes at Q1 and Q2.

That WP:AT be amended by way of a separate section to recognise that dash-separated title for sports events are an acknowledged exception to what is otherwise written at WP:AT.

Discussion, comments, !votes

Comment: Assuming there is support at least for Q1, the proposition is to create a separate section to record that the dash separated construction is permitted for sports articles. Individual parts of WP:AT could be amended but this would require a consensus on the specific amendments to be made at several places. IMHO, it would be easier to construct a separate section permitting the dashed construction in sports articles notwithstanding anything else written at WP:AT. The benefit of such a section is that it would clearly record that the dashed construction is permitted. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – not clear how to agree or disagree, but if we "recognise that dash-separated title for sports events are an acknowledged exception", let's not do that in a way the suggests we think it's a good idea. Recognizing and acknowledging might be OK, but we don't want to suggest that the pattern is anything more than an exception to normal guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Some of the reasoning behind proposing a separate section acknowledging dashes for sport articles was not to change the existing policy. You would note that I used the phrase "an acknowledged exception" in phrasing the proposition. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is fallaciously assuming its premise is true and begging the question being addressed in part 1 of this RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, not quite. The question does not presume the outcomes of Q 1 but it does "beg the question". It does so explicitly, since I phrased the RfC accordingly. If Q1 flies, how are we going to deal with it. The subsequent questions naturally follow - thay do not presume the outcome of Q1 but do assume that it is possible. The subsequent questions then circumvent some of the RfCs that might follow. Your comment at Q1 indicates you are opposed to multiple RfCs about the same issue. In framing the RfC, it is clearly stated that support for a subsequent proposition does not imply support for an earlier proposition. Your response here is exactly that which I tried to circumvent by phrasing the RfC as I did. If there is support for Q1, how do we best deal with it without having multiple RfCs? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Still oppose. This is too trivial a sideline to be changing the site-wide title policy about it. This does not rise to policy level, at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my comments under Q1, sports articles are not special cases that justify amendments/additions to the guideline in order to validate bad practice. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Wjemather, I respect your opposition to Q1. The question here is how we would deal with the issue if Q1 did actually fly (despite your objections to Q1). I would only ask that you think past those objections and how we might deal with that eventuality (given your comment here does not imply support for Q1). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  We do nothing, because nothing needs to be done. Per WP:CREEP; this would be a solution looking for a problem. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  If Q3 were proposed in isolation, it might be a "solution looking for a problem". But it is not in isolation. One could say that ignoring it is like sticking ones head in the sand. It is a real possibility to be addressed? Cinderella157 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support If Q1 does gain a consensus, we are going to be faced with how to record it. The first possibility is to amend the sections at WP:AT in a way that makes the dashed construction permissible/acknowledges it for sports articles. I see this as problematic in respect to gaining agreement as to how each section might be amended in a way that reflects that this is a particular exception and not one to be more broadly construed (though some have suggested that perhaps it should be (that in itself is an indication that such an approach will be problematic). A second option is not to amend WP:AT to reflect the result of the RfC. Q1 relates to a narrowly defined but significant number of articles. My experience is that in such cases, an exception to P&G (to such an extent) will raise its head again. The resolution is to point to the RfC but this relies on the collective memory and the ability to identify where this occurred and then trace back through archives to identify the particular RfC. I don't think that this is a particularly good solution and we have already seen (in related discussions) some failings that relate to this approach. The preposition of Q3 therefore seems to me to be the better of the available options, in that it clearly records the exception to the other advice at WP:AT in a way that is less problematic than the alternative of trying to amend different sections of wp:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Absolutely no need for this. The current setup for tennis is not a contradiction to WP:AT, so no change is necessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - Thanks to @Cinderella157: for setting up this RFC, I guess there are still some unanswered questions, but at first glance it looks like it may be grounded in some misrepresentations of what was said and decided in the previous RFC. In particular, the assertion that the dashed format is a form of disambiguation rather than a natural title in its own right was refuted at that RFC, and the RFC was closed as allowing dashed titles in these articles. To highlight why I wouldn't see it as a disambiguator, I don't think there's any scenario in which we would title our article Men's singles (2014 US Open), as this misrepresents the importance of the year and event name to the subject under discussion. The title lacks any context if you don't include the event that it's part of. I'm also unclear why flipping the order of the two terms, but retaining the dash (option 2) is marked as not an exception, while option 1 is marked as an exception. Anyway, the bottom line is I'm quite happy with the status quo on how these articles are titled, and as established at recent RMs, except that I don't want to see undue capitalisation in the titles, thus either 2014 US Open – Men's singles or 2014 US Open – men's singles is my preferred format. So I'll place my !votes here in any way consistent with that result. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, there are three separate questions and the "Background" would provide the background to these. The dash construction distinguishes different events played for within a particular tournament's year. It also distinguishes the same event being played for across different tournament years. It inherently has a disambiguation function. The ordering issue is at WP:TITLEFORMAT, which says not to create or imply sub-articles. Hence, the "title-subtitle" construction is contrary to that part of the policy. Since you support the dash construction, you would agree with question 1. Since you are happy with either order, you would support option 3. You have not voiced an opinion to the third question. There were a couple of other issues that were raised in the previous RfC (including over-capitalisation, long titles and notability). These are fairly peculiar to the dashed construction and might be addressed if there were a section in WP:AT specifically related the dashed construction. The problem is that too many questions at once can wreck an RfC, so I am taking a smaller step to see where this goes. On that basis, you might consider supporting question 3. Could you please add your preferences to each of the three sections. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Amakuru, the previous RfC was closed with "no consensus" on all points and consequently, it did not change the status quo. However, the RfC was not closed as allowing dashed titles in these articles. In the #Post close section, the closer made specific comments that go to that matter, and ultimately, the framing of this RfC. There has been no misrepresentation. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That is incorrect. There was no consensus on the capitalisation questions, but regarding dashes the RFC closed as "dashes should be allowed", which was in any case the status quo prior to this. It certainly did not conclude, as you are suggesting, that the dash is there as a disambiguator. That was refuted, as indeed myself and Sportsfan are refuting it now, and the closer explicitly did not endorse that view. This RFC is therefore misprepresenting the status quo.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru, please read the close and post close again. I specifically clarified the matter of the apparent ambiguity with the closer. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC) PS If the dash construction is such a good idea, then it will have no problem flying. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the dash "inherently has a disambiguation function". In fact, I don't think it serves a disambiguation function at all. If it did, the parent article would be a disambiguation page, but it's not --- it's an actual article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, The dash construction distinguishes different events played for within a particular tournament's year. It also distinguishes the same event being played for across different tournament years. You may disagree that this inherently serves as a form of disambiguation but I can't see how. Not every case has to have a disambiguation page as a parent article (eg primary topics don't and cases with two alternatives use a hatnote from the primary topic. In cases using dashes, the templates serve to navigate in the same way as a disambiguation page. If the dashes are such a good construction using the "title-subtitle" format, then the natural outcome of this RfC will be to support this through the question rather than arguing about semantics and interpretations. You will note that the RfC is actually premised on an outcome to support such a construction. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that 2014 U.S. Open (golf) exists I'd say drop the dash business and go 2014 US Open Men's singles etc as the obvious solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs) 11:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You didn't mean to capitalize Men's there, did you? Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with this, although I don't want to proscribe the option of amending the AT more generally to be less prescriptive about the whole matter. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thryduulf, I'm not quite certain what you mean so I will take a stab. You don't want to amend what is already written at WP:AT in a way that would make what is already there less prescriptive? The proposition of question 3 is not to change any of what is already written but to add a section to WP:AT that would permit dash separated titles for sports articles notwithstanding anything else written at WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I want WP:AT to permit dashed titles where appropriate. I would prefer that this happen by way of an amendment to the existing text to make it less prescriptive. I don't object to adding an addendum for sports articles as you propose but that is imo a less good option. Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – I appreciate this attempt to help figure out how we should interpret and regard these dash-separated titles that I started the inquiry about, a while back now. They are clearly "sub-articles", which WP:AT says we should not do. But we do, to the tune of about 50,000 or more titles. I'd rather "acknowledge" than explicitly "permit", so if I answer the questions separately it might look contradictory. But there are other possibilities. Why do we even consider a "men's singles" sub-event to be notable? There is very little in the way of sourcing on any of these, other than a stats site or perhaps a news mention sometimes. Why not merge all those sub-events back into the main event articles? I know, the reason is that it would be an unreasonable amount of work. And there are other situations to consider besides tennis tournaments. Anyway, I might attempt separate answers above, but I think the main problem is that we have tens of thousand of articles on topics that are not notable. Sorry, tennis fans, that's how I see it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

So Men's Singles at the Australian Open isn't notable? Sorry but Unbelievable! Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Some of the big ones may very well be independently notable. But not the many thousands. If the pattern was to cover the Australian Open in one place, that wouldn't hurt, but if you wanted to break out narrower articles on the notable subevents, that would be OK. And Men's singles at the 2022 Australian Open would be a good title for that. And Men's singles at the Australian Open if you wanted an article that spans the years. These would be normal titles on notable topics; what we're talking about now are thousands of odd titles on topics many of which have no significant coverage in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Balderdash. They are extremely important in every tennis event. They include draws, qualifying, withdrawals, seeding, etc... With so many disciplines in tennis it would overwhelm a yearly tennis article. Our Olympic articles handle things the same way. The titles aren't odd at all. Event and then discipline within the event is the most logical choice of title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Your "balderdash" comment doesn't really address the question of whether most of these are independently notable, as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of these articles are sourced to nothing but a score tabulating website. Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I reckon a lot of them are actually notable events. Just because the articles are under sourced doesn't mean that sources don't exist. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I could pick a relatively lower level tennis tournament like the Challenger taking place this week in Chile. While it is nowhere near the level of the Australian Open notability wise and press coverage wise, it is still mentioned in a variety of different reliable sources like ESPN, local Chilean news, and in general tennis websites. All the while the actual Wikipedia article doesn't have much sourcing. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to learning more about what's in sources. Are there articles specifically talk about the "men's singles", "women's doubles", etc. for such lower level tournaments? And what do they call them? It's hard to tell from those links. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean like this link, or this link, or this link, or this link, or this link, or this link, or this link, or this link, or even this link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources I provided were specifically taking about the singles event but there was no specific mention of gender as this tournament is only part of the men's tour. Adamtt9 (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I see. That wasn't obvious. So maybe something like "Men's tour singles (Australian Open)" would be a way to express that? Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, the year would have to be in the title somewhere to differentiate between different editions of the tournament. I am actually fine with the way the titles are right now and don't see a problem with amending any sort of style guidelines to permit the construction of the title that is currently being used. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Many editors (but not a consensus) expressed an opinion in the last RfC (above) that the dashed construction was a "good idea" (summarising the various reasons given). The dashed construction has been shown to be not a WP:COMMONNAME as derermined in running text nor has it been shown to be an official name. Per WP:CRITERIA: it may be recognisable, it has been shown that it is not natural (in prose) and, it is reasonably precise but significantly less concise than other options in some circumstances. The main reason given is that it is consistent. However, notability of articles (or rather, the lack of) may be a reason for not agreeing with the dashed construction. If a significant number of articles created fail to meet WP:GNG (or do not otherwise reasonably meet other P&G), the rational of "consistency" fails as a justification for the construction. Per WP:GNG (policy): A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Local consensus does not override but gives supplemental advice. I acknowledge that "men's" singles (and like) are notable. I acknowledge that the US Open (tennis) and other tournaments are notable. I acknowledge that the 2014 US Open (tennis) event is notable and even that the winners and particular players are notable. What is not yet clear is that the 2014 US Open – Men's Singles is sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article. Furthermore, that it passes WP:NOTNEWS. I am open to being convinced that a substantial number of articles taking the dashed form are individually notable and therefore justify consistency as a rationale for acknowledging the construction. I am also open to any other cogent arguments that are for or aganst the construction being acknowledged. Please convince me. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There might be a semantic distinction between "acknowledging" and "permitting" the construction but I don't know if I any substantial practical distinction. The proposal is restricted to sports articles. Those sports that already use the dash construction will continue to do so in either case and those that don't are unlikely to change. Of course, you are not bound to respond to the questions in a prescribed way (only that it is ultimately easier for a closer and ultimately, the argument made is more important). The earlier RfC (above) did raise some concerns about these articles, including notability, title length and, of course capitalisation. I could also say that there is something of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There are clearly some practical issues of asking too many questions at once. Even this RfC is a stretch. If there is a consensus to permit (or acknowledge) the dash construction, then these issues can then be addressed. If there is a consensus against such a construction, those issues become moot (or perhaps mute). In the previous RfC (above) advocates for the dash argued that they were a good idea. Some argued that their extensive use effectively made them a fait accompli. Answering the questions separately is not a contradiction. I specificly addressed this in the "Outline of RfC". One can disagree with the proposition at Q1 and then answer Q2 and Q3 on the basis that the response is contingent on there being a consensus for Q1 but not implying your support for Q1 - ie if we are going to have them (even though I don't like it) I would prefer this option. Myself, I am not certain where I stand on Q1 but I have some views on Q2 and ultimately think there are good reasons to record the outcome per Q3. I am just waiting to see if there are any good arguments being presented. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

NATURAL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#How common to be sufficiently common for natural disambiguation? to reword WP:NATURAL to make it more restrictive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Natural disambiguation RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Proposal rejected by a vast majority of editors, as unclear in application and scope. While a RfC discussion may amend or clarify the original proposal, and a more narrowly focused one could achieve some consensus, this one was rejected as a non-starter. Closing early per WP:SNOW. No such user (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Should WP:NATURAL and WP:NCDAB be rewritten to reflect that natural disambiguation should generally only be used to settle titles where there are near equal choices such as Chinese whispers v Telephone (game) (RM) and Handa Island v Handa, Scotland (RM) and not generally allow significantly less common titles trump the most common such as Bus (computing) v Computer bus (RM) and Fan (machine) v Mechanical fan (RM)? In the 2nd sentence at WP:NATURAL I propose to change "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." to "Natural disambiguation can generally be used where there are titles that are near equal choices (such as French language v French (language)), where its otherwise disputed such is best (like Chinese whispers v Telephone (game)) or where adding a qualifier is difficult or impossible like Sarah Jane Brown where plain Sarah Brown is ambiguous. In general qualified titles are preferred to natural disambiguation if the choice is not near equal even if the title would be understood, thus New York (state) is preferred to New York State and Bray, Berkshire is preferred to Bray on Thames, in particular do not, use obscure or made-up names". I don't mind if all or some of this is in a footnote if this is too long and I welcome any suggestions for better examples. @Born2cycle, Amakuru, and RGloucester: Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This will be a welcome change to bring policy in line with the de facto convention which has been confirmed by numerous RMs over the years, and the examples Crouch supplies above. I suppose the only other examples that may be worth highlighting are Association football, French language and Bizet sheep. The latter two are valid NATURALDIS because putting brackets in, to make French (language) and Bizet (sheep), simply adds characters for no discernible benefit. Association football is just another Sarah Jane Brown case, since nobody liked the previous title of Football (soccer) and nothing else really comes to mind.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support as proposer, its quite clear that articles should generally be at the common name even if a qualifier is needed and in some discussions we blindly follow NATURAL without giving much thought about common names which can cause problems for both readers and editors, even I admit I've done this in the past. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, though I recommend tweaking the language to be clear “near equal” is in terms of how commonly the natural disambiguation term is used in reliable sources to refer to the topic at issue compared to the ambiguous most common name of the topic. —В²C ☎ 23:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though I agree the current language is too vague and can be used to support natural disambiguation when it’s too rarely used, and so I initially supported this proposal, upon further reflection I’ve decided it needs more than a few tweaks, but a complete rewrite, and this train wreck is not where to do it. —В²C ☎ 15:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @Born2cycle: The proposal is tightening/clarify of the language/adding to it so you can support some changing/clarify even if you don't agree with the precise wording change. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I appreciate the goal and your effort, but the wording needs to be fleshed out. I suggest withdrawing this specific proposal, hatting it, and starting a new discussion to work out wording to be proposed. —В²C ☎ 06:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
        • This proposal can discuss the wording, it wasn't intended that the proposed wording be exact just that it be clarified/tightened, you can propose different language or start a new proposal after but I think some may view that as forum shopping given this proposal was no over specific wording. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
          • What about simply changing Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names to Do not, however, use significantly less common or made-up names? Ruбlov (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

            I support that but I don’t see how to achieve a consensus for it or anything in this particular discussion. —В²C ☎ 15:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – WP:NATURAL disambiguation has, for many years, been considered preferable to parenthetical disambiguation on Wikipedia. The additional text is confusing (it doesn't set down a framework for what a 'near equal choice' is), and for reasons that cannot possibly understood, issues a new preference for parenthetical disambiguation that has never existed before. This may result in many, many article titles needing to be changed, and it is not obvious that there is any good justification for this change, which could lead to extensive disruption. The present AT policy's wording is more than sufficient, already proscribes using 'obscure or made-up names' as 'natural disambiguation', and allows for editorial discretion. There is no need to remove the existing flexibility from this policy, and enforce a preference for parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 23:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. For the reasons brought forward by RGloucester. If anything, we don't use NATURALDIS enough as in the case of fisher cat which wasn't supported in favour of fisher (animal) despite fisher cat being a valid regional name for the animal (yes, I still care about this). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  We don't use NATURALDIS enough because it's a pile of horse manure. Wikipedia is supposed to follow sources and call things the same way as sources do. Most people who participate in RMs recognize this, which is why we end up with sensible titles on most of our articles. Plus, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a parenthetical disambiguator. To see so many seasoned AT experts digging in their heels in and defending a policy which has been dead in the water for years is disappointing to say the least. Perhaps the wording of the above proposal can be tightened and made clearer, but the fundamental point is both necessary and already in place.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What sources refer to 'New York State' as 'New York (state)'? NATURAL has never, ever encouraged the use of uncommon titles. It very clearly says that any naturally disambiguated title must something that the subject is 'commonly called in English reliable sources'. This proposal does not do anything to achieve the goals you claim to have. It simply creates a pretext for disruption across the encyclopaedia...and for what? RGloucester — ☎ 17:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What sources refer to 'New York State' as 'New York (state)'? That is the same as asking "What sources refer to the planet Mercury as 'Mercury (planet)'? It is called plain old 'New York' in the context of states, [1] and the parenthetical disambiguation mirrors that fact. StonyBrook (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per RGloucester and MJL. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support with perhaps some more clarification on what "near equal" means. For example, if the US uses an ambiguous name requiring parenthetical disambiguation while the UK uses a naturally disambiguated name, it can be totally valid to use the latter even if the former is much more common by sheer numbers due to population. I think that will take care of MJL's concern. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts: "Near equal" means where the natural disambiguated title is almost as common as the "preferred-but-ambiguous title", in some or many cases like the 1st 2 examples above it may be as common or moreso. Think of the New York example with respect to the city and state, some sources call the city just "New York" such as the AP Stylebook, Google Maps and the censuses while Britannica uses "New York City". For the city both "New York" and "New York City" are good choices but New York is unalienable so the unambiguous title "New York City" is an effective tie breaker while the consensus seemed to be that "New York State" wasn't common enough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support; natural disambiguation's that are not sufficiently common fail WP:NATURAL and WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and should generally be avoided, even if it means we need to use a parenthetical. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. The present wording of WP:NATURAL does as well, describing natural disambiguation as 'Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.' This proposal doesn't do anything to further to discourage 'insufficiently common' names, which are already proscribed by the present policy. On the contrary, what it does is declare a Wikipedia-wide preference for parenthetical disambiguation, something that has never existed before. Why is such a change necessary to accomplish the goal you have described? RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You, and Wugapodes, have a point. I still broadly support the proposal, and would prefer it over the status quo, but a middle position might be better. Perhaps Do not, however, use made-up names or uncommon names, even when they are the official name or understandable. Natural disambiguation such as New York State will continue to be an option and so the dispute there will not be resolved, but it should address the general issue which goes beyond more ambiguous options such as that.

Note the intent of "understandable" is to prevent titles that the reader will understand, but are harder to understand than parentheticals. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I would be willing to support something like this. Iffy★Chat -- 17:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to mention official names but yes a qualified title for a common name should generally be preferred over an obscure official name. This is part of the "commonly used" part, the important point is that it should generally be almost as commonly used as the apparently preferred ambiguous title. With both the Fan and Bus RMs those supporting did so apparently mainly because they felt that natural disambiguation was generally preferred even if significantly less common while those opposing pointed out the problems with using natural disambiguation. There was no consensus in both cases and while the Fan article should probably have been reverted given the previous move request it looks like many actually supported such a move in the previous request even though they were against making the machine primary so leaving as is was probably OK especially since the move revert was because of the RM going on at that time. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment So the case affected is that it would dictate parenthetical disambig when the titles are not of similar stature. I don't see where this makes any sense. What they might be after is the laudable goal that if there is a large difference in stature disambig should be avoided on the far more prominent one. For example if the article Dog (band) gets created, that does not dictate changing the Dog article to Dog (animal) or Dog species. North8000 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed text is a regressive step that makes the disambiguation policy harder to understand and will lead to more disputes, not fewer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment How are New York (state) and New York State not near equal? They're literally the same sequence of words, just that the first has parentheses. Why would we prefer that as a display title and not the shorter and more natural title? — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I would agree with that. I broadly agree with the proposal - unnatural disambiguated titles are problematic - but I don't believe the provided example of New York State demonstrates that, although the official name is not always suitable disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The history of the article name of New York (state) is very unpleasant. To summarise, some editors argued that using the naturally disambiguated New York State was inappropriate, as it would give readers the impression that that was the 'official' name of the state, and hence, they preferred to use brackets. There was also some question as to whether MOS:CAPS would allow 'state' to be capitalised. The brackets allow that issue to be circumvented. Meanwhile, I tried to come in and point out that 'New York (state)' itself proudly proclaims itself as 'New York State' on its own webpage, but this was treated as folderol. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Wugapodes, similar to the ambiguous Washington State, New York State was considered ambiguous with State University of New York. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose per Wugapodes. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, with the disclaimer that I'm not 100% certain how sweeping this proposal is, and that more generally this isn't a vote yes-or-no type issue. There are hordes of requested moves; nominator has cherry-picked some failed moves that favored natural disambiguation, but it'd be equally possible to cherry-pick examples of RMs that endorsed a natural disambiguation title. It's possible that the consensus of the community will shift over time from 50/50 to 70/30 to 60/40 or the like. That's all fine. It's clear that both natural disambiguation and parenthetical disambiguation are used, and there's different use cases for each, and the community differs a tad on how applicable it is to any particular case. That's perfectly fine and healthy: there's no need for any such proposal as the above at all. If the community really does soft-deprecate natural disambiguation, then we'll see all RMs start closing that way, and there won't even need to be a RFC then, just a validation of the hypothetical future situation. But I doubt that will happen - there are many cases where natural disambiguation is, well, natural. Some of the example failed RMs were not so much that natural disambiguation is bad, but rather that the nominator was trying to force an unusual or unclear phrasing - that's not a statement against natural disambiguation in general, just whether "computer bus" was really that common a phrase. SnowFire (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone benefits from vague guidance that facilitates decisions made randomly based primarily on the arbitrary personal preferences of whoever happens to show up at each RM discussion. While I prefer we don't imply some "naturally disambiguated" name is commonly used for a topic when it isn't, ultimately I suggest we should care much more about stabilizing our titles with clarified guidelines so the community doesn't burn so much time and effort debating issues that ultimately matter very little to anyone, in any practical sense. --В²C ☎ 16:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

    Here is one example of a failed parenthetical RM that I was involved in. I preferred Meta (company), but the naturalists thought otherwise. StonyBrook (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems like a solution in search of a problem and the proposed new guidance is pure instruction creep. Calidum 16:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - yes, we shouldn't be using obscure or made-up names as natural disambiguation, but there are many times where the natural disambiguation would be preferable to the parenthetical. See for instance, King of Hearts's reasoning at Talk:Battle of Carthage, Missouri. This is instruction creep that isn't even an across-the-board positive. Hog Farm _Talk 16:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calidum, Eggishorn etc. Way too detailed, too many examples (some of which don't even have consensus, for example the last Sarah Brown RM didn't have any consensus whatsoever and I doubt that the other examples have a clear consensus either). We already use too many obscure and made-up names in misguided efforts to avoid parenetical disambiguation, so what we need to is to enforce the written policy better rather than try to write every possible scenario in to the policy. Iffy★Chat -- 16:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose because I read the proposal thrice and don't understand it, so I oppose replacing a short instruction with a long confusing one. Sandstein 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:NCSPDAB says "It is strongly discouraged to add a middle name, initial, "Jr.", etc., or to use the birth name rather than the nickname (or vice versa), merely for disambiguation purposes. If this format of the name is not the one most commonly used to refer to this person, that simply makes it more difficult for readers to find the article." I think this was Amakuru's point at the Fan RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Sandstein above. I keep re-reading the proposal and I can't figure out just how it will affect many articles. If it's that convoluted and long I can't support it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sandstein etc. I don't understand the proposal fully and don't like the parts I understand. You should re-write the policy first ... if you think there is any chance it passes. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ditto X last nine opposes. Mike Cline (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support The current wording gives too much room for ignoring WP:Common name. Avilich (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Either natural disambiguation as first preferred or case-by-case basis should be status quo. Parenthetical disambiguation should be reserved primarily for topics lacking primacy or primary topic discussions or individual discussions about commonly used names. @Crouch, Swale: Have you considered withdrawing the proposal? The whole majority opposes, if not strongly opposes, it. George Ho (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I can't withdraw it because there is support and its not a WP:SNOW case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - there are two issues here: the intended change, and the language attempting to make said change. Mild oppose to the change, strong oppose to the word salad. Retswerb (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. I might just be tired (or stupid) but I can’t make sense of Natural disambiguation can generally be used … where its otherwise disputed such is best (like Chinese whispers v Telephone (game)). It’s also not clear that this change reflects a community consensus based on RMs in general, especially when many of the examples given were close calls or lacked a consensus entirely. And maybe this is a different problem, but if we’re being this verbose, I would like the guidance to include an explanation for why New York State is looked down on, while French language isn’t. — HTGS (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Because it was felt that "New York State" wasn't common enough to be "near equal" but "French language" is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not the reason why 'New York State' was rejected. You may want to read the old discussions again before making such assertions. In fact, 'New York State' is the most common way to refer to the entity when disambiguated... RGloucester — ☎ 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@RGloucester: My reading of the RM was along the lines at least of it not being near equally used/being inconsistent with other states which is the point is that it may not be a near equal choice? My understanding is that the term "state" is generally used as a modifier rather than part of the name which is why it was put in brackets rather than capitalized without. What is you're thoughts as to why the NATURAL title was rejected? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose because after several readings I haven't a bloody clue what the proposal is. Less is more. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is completely wrong. WP:TITLEDAB only offers the options; it does not suggest which is best, because that is indicated by the WP:CRITERIA. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not sure I agree with the proposed interpretation, which is excessively wordy and seems hyperfocused on a few examples. Worse still, I think the proposed interpretation creates more disputes, not less, and could even interfere with other practical discussion. I'm open to other proposals, but I see the status quo as pretty good. Better than this proposal. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I had to read through a few times to try to understand it, and I'm still not sure I get what it means. If I as a veteran Wikipedian can't make heads or tails of it, then newbies who rely the most on our policies will be utterly lost. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Natural disambiguation is, as the name says, the natural form of disambiguation - ie, it is the name that can and usually is used to describe the topic. It is wording that can often be written out in an article sentence without the need to pipe. Natural disambiguation is simply an acceptable alternative name, sort of next on the list of most commonly used names for a topic. Adding brackets to a name is not what we normally do when describing something - it looks awkward, is awkward to use when creating links to the article because it always has to be piped, and is not something we would say out loud (because it's not "natural"). Using brackets to disambiguate should be the last resort when other forms are felt not to work as well. Natural disambiguation should always, naturally, be the first choice if it is available. SilkTork (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Natural disambiguation should often be piped anyway as with bracket and comma disambiguation such as "X is in the [[Torridge District|Torridge]] district" as opposed to "X is in the [[Torridge (district)|Torridge]] district" and inappropriate natural disambiguation may result in longer inaccurate names being shown instead of piped as editors may think the longer name is the correct one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  1) There is no rule that says natural disambiguation must always be piped and it makes no sense to use piped links in the example you provided. 2) There's still time to abandon this sinking ship. You're no Edward Smith. Calidum 16:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't always have to be piped but it generally should as the name a topic is referred to should normally be the actual name rather than a less common alternative but there will be cases where the less common alternative is appropriate to use. To use a better example imagine if my September 2020 RM for Mississippi had have been successful but the consensus was to use Mississippi State per WP:NATURAL we'd have people writing "X is a city in [[Mississippi State]], United States" instead of "X is a city in the state of [[Mississippi State|Mississippi]], United States". Or an even better example (ignoring that fact its very unlikely to need disambiguation) Massachusetts State instead of Massachusetts (state)]] you might have "Holyoke is a city in Hampden County, Massachusetts State, United States". So article titles aren't just to help readers they also help editors use the correct name in running text. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  No, this would never occur because 'Mississippi State' is not a common way to refer to 'Mississippi' and 'Massachusetts State' is not a common way to refer to 'Massachusetts', so both would be unacceptable as NATURAL disambiguation under the current text of the policy, and no one would ever think to write like that anyway. However, in a case like New York State, where 'New York State' is actually a common way to refer to the state, there is certainly nothing wrong with writing 'xyz is in New York State', especially when confusion with the city is possible. By the way, WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to article text, and there is no policy on Wikipedia that specifies that article names dictate how one must write in the body of articles. RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it is time to withdraw this. My reading of the discussion is that there may be a consensus for a change, but not this change. BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  The proposer is unable to do that. The least we can do is wait for someone to close this already. George Ho (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Snow close then. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, please. Snow close ASAP. —-В²C ☎ 15:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Query

I recently discovered the article Raleigh murders. I am not sure this is an appropriate title given that many murders have happened in that city and the sources are not referring to these killings under this naming convention consistently. Not really sure what the topic should be called.4meter4 (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

1996 Raleigh murders would be fine. 162 etc. (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Should natural disambiguation be more natural than parenthetical disambiguation?

Should we, in deciding whether to use a natural disambiguation, give extra weight to how natural the consequent names are (per WP:CRITERIA)? Should we give extra weight to official names? As written, the guideline is quite clear for common nouns where two options are similar, but my take of WP:NATDAB and WP:COMMONNAME is that we should only use names that are more natural, and are at least in common use, giving a preference to the nat dabs only as the deciding factor if they are more natural than the disambiguated commonest name.

I ask because there is current discussion on whether to apply official names to a number of New Zealand places as natural disambiguation (Talk:Cam_River_(Canterbury)#Requested_move_22_March_2022), but many of these official names are particularly rare in use, and result in substantially less natural titles. The implication of the RM is that the official name carries its own weight beyond its popular usage or naturalness. — HTGS (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Generically speaking, I'd expect a natural dab to be somewhat-to-pretty common, which conceivably might not always be the case for an official name. It's subjective, and best left to discussion for a given area's subject matter experts.—Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

US or U.S.?

Wikipedia has over 1,300 articles with titles beginning "U.S.", including, e.g., U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School, U.S. government response to the September 11 attacks, U.S. kill or capture strategy in Iraq, U.S. senator bibliography (congressional memoirs), and U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps (though more than half of all "U.S." titles are highway routes), and about 300 articles with titles beginning "US", including, e.g., US General Accounting Office Building, US Breastfeeding Report Card 2014, US military watches, US public opinion on the North American Free Trade Agreement, US state laws and policies for ICT accessibility. We should have consistency, but what should be the standard, and should things like names of military units or route numbers be treated differently from generic examinations of the country's policies and activities? BD2412 T 22:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Aren't a lot of these done by sourcing? In tennis the organization is quite specific that it's always US Open while in golf it's always U.S. Open. We would need to be careful not to infringe on sourcing on some articles. When it is U.S. govt specific articles it looks like its usually U.S. (U.S. Air Force), and when it's general (US public opinion) it usually US. However the article "US General Accounting Office Building" you listed officially goes by U.S. so that should change if we keep the same general format. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Syle shifted significantly toward US in its 2014 edition; but we still need to observe the titles of institutions that haven't yet updated. Tony (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Many of these are topics, not institutions, though. I pointed out several of each kind to highlight this. BD2412 T 02:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally, the highway articles should be moved to ditch the periods as we have the inconsistency of "U.S. Route 1" and "US 1"; periods in the full name but not in the abbreviation. I've said before that we should follow CMOS on that and ditch the periods from the highway names. Imzadi 1979 → 02:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. CMOS has been showing a disturbing pattern in recent years of following trends in British English which make no sense because they appear to be attributable to the UK's gross underfunding and incompetent mismanagement of its schools. We have a lot of British expats here in California who fled to America to teach in schools that still value good writing. I read Chaucer during my senior year of high school with a Cambridge alumnus. And to be clear, I am thoroughly familiar with the differences between American and British English because I have made a point of reading UK newspapers and magazines regularly for over 20 years (it helps that California libraries carry so many of them because we have so many expats).

The better solution is to standardize all article titles about American subjects on the most common usage in formal written English, U.S. That is unlikely to change any time soon. The two most common legal citation guides, the Bluebook and ALWD, both prefer U.S. and have always done so for many years. Every decent law school in the United States pounds one or the other of those citation guides into graduates. And the prominence of lawyers in American public life ensures that the vast majority of American government agencies, Fortune 500 corporations, and top-tier universities are managed by people who learned to write U.S. with the periods and they expect everyone who reports to them to write that way. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Just wondering, do these same rigid manuals like Bluebook and ALWD, the Fortune 500 and top-tier universities also use U.K. along with U.S.? AP style uses both US and U.S. depending on if it's a title. Wikipedia tends to go by common style guides such as CMOS or APMOS rather than law school etiquette. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Attempting a priori standardization of U.S. or US is doomed to failure. We have redirects for a reason. We cannot dictate to our readers or our sources which is "correct" in every usage and even if we pick one for the sake of consistency neither the sources nor or our readers are consistent. It is neither useful nor necessary to have this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)