Wikipedia talk:Article titles

WP:CONCISE. Should "estimated" be added to most list article titles?

WP:CONCISE. See RFC here:

• Talk:Estimated percent of households with guns by country#RfC about name of article and content

Someone recently added "Estimated" to that article title. I find that many list/table articles explain in the article and/or article references about the level of estimation involved, and how the data was acquired.

Does it really need to be in the article title too? The current article there, and its references, already explains that they are estimates. The main reference there (at the reference site) explains their sourcing. Many data points in list articles are based on surveys, for example. Editors can add as much detail as they want in an article about the reference methodology. We need to keep article titles shorter if we want them to be understood in the truncated titles that major search engines present to readers. See my previous talk section here. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it rather goes without saying that percentages of anything at a national level will always be "estimated". BD2412 T 04:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"Someone", being me, did not make the argument presented here. Nowhere will you find that I made such a suggestion. Instead, where articles are presenting data this is largely gathered via surveys and proxies, it should note that they are estimates in the title, as many similar articles already do. The vast majority of 'list' articles are not based on estimates - that is trivially verifiable and obvious. Adding 'estimated' to list article titles where the data presented is not estimated would be bonkers. It's worth pointing out that before I worked on the article, it nowhere stated that the data presented was estimated. We aren't supposed to assume that general readers know that it 'goes without saying' that X, Y, or Z obtain under some circumstances, and not under others. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether it is many or most list articles that are estimated is not my point. My point is that WP:CONCISE encourages shorter article names. You can't put everything in the article title as WP:CONCISE, and its longer article, points out. Many list articles start with a table of countries, states, etc.. Then more and more details are filled in by editors over time concerning the references, estimation methods, questions from notable sources on the quality of those sources, etc.. Few articles start out perfect. See the previous talk section I was involved in here:

#Google limits length of titles in search results. Big difference in page views

--Timeshifter (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Whether it is many or most list articles that are estimated is not my point." yet the title of this section you created suggests that that is the argument. The majority of 'list' articles are not lists of estimates; again, this is trivially verifiable. Where an article's content is based on surveys and proxies, then it's appropriate - it's misleading to title an article as an emphatic when it's not. Filling in more data in a table doesn't change that the values are still estimates. In the case of firearm ownership, the estimates range from 'maybe close' to 'wildy disparate'. This inquiry should be retitled, since it's misleading, it should instead be something along the lines of "Should "estimated" be added to articles where it's not obvious to the general reader that the data isn't strict?" cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree the word "estimated" should not be in most list article titles. Estimation can be addressed in the body of the article itself. Rlendog (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Most? Absolutely not. Most list articles are not even numerical, where the word "estimated" wouldn't be appropriate at all. In this one article title? Possibly. Discuss it on the article talk page, and reach a consensus. --Jayron32 14:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• No , even if they are not exhaustive. Wikipedia is a work in progress. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Well, actually, User:Anastrophe's point is well taken. First of all, to clarify -- it's a little obscured -- almost all lists are like "Mountains over X meters tall in Antarctica" etc. There's no guessing there. Second of all, when a list is based on estimates, it's taking away crucial info from the reader, almost misleading the reader you could say I guess (I woudn't go that far myself) to not say so. And no, some non-negligable number of readers are not going to suss right off that of course the data is estimated.

Well taken, but still... the main function of a title is to get the reader where she wants to be, and no more than that. I don't think anyone is going to find "Number of frogs in Lake Oneida" confusing where "Estimated number of frogs in Lake Oneida" wouldn't be, for navigation purposes. Either is going to get them to the article they want. By all means the fact that its estimated should be made clear right off, first sentence or soon after. If the article doesn't do that, the solution is to add it, not change the title. Herostratus (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I am so used to editing "by country" and "by state" data lists that I don't see much else. There are thousands of them, and many are based on estimated data. So that is what I am referring to.

--Timeshifter (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• No to the general question. If WP:RS generally add qualifiers like "estimated" to specific lists, these may need qualifiers here as well. In many such lists, the data quality will vary greatly from country to country, which will need to be explained in the lead, but usually I would not expect the title to be sufficient to understand the data quality issues. —Kusma (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, unless we can say with a high degree of confidence that we have the correct rounded value. Our readers would generally expect rounding when handling big numbers, but we should not give them a false sense of correctness. Animal lover |666| 13:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Per Herostratus: "By all means the fact that its estimated should be made clear right off, first sentence or soon after. If the article doesn't do that, the solution is to add it, not change the title." Plus some list articles have non-estimated values for some countries, but have estimated values for others. Or highly accurate estimated values for some countries, and much less accurate estimates for other countries. And many other variations. Putting "estimated" in the title does not present a full picture. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• No to "estimated" in titles. Lots of statistics are estimates. It doesn't add anything significant without saying who made the estimate or how it was made. That's for the article body, not the title. The search intitle:"estimated" only gives 26 hits and most of them are redirects or terms with "Estimated" in the name. There are a grand total of two article titles using "estimated" to say the content is estimated: Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country and List of estimated best-selling Italian music artists. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• No it just needs to be explained in the text. Also the word "known" does not have to be in the title. After all we only write about what is known. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• No Unless it is especially not obvious, I would not add estimated. Even if it was exact when written, it will be wrong soon after, and we wouldn't go changing the title for that reason. We would not name an article Percent of households with guns by country on June 28th, 2023 for example, though it might be more accurate. I believe we are allowed to round, even if WP:RS have more (too) exact values. Gah4 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• No, although for the record, I think that it would sound better to say "Proportion of..." rather than "Percent of..." in articles such as the one referenced above. I would reserve "estimated" for situations in which there is a particularly high degree of uncertainty. Mover of molehills^{move me} 00:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• No/It Depends - Would the titles of some list articles be better if we used “estimated”? Perhaps. Would the title of most list articles be better? No. This is something we do not need a rule about. It can be discussed and decided on an on an article by article basis. Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• No, per sentence two of AT policy (what it's about; distinguishes it from others) and WP:CONCISE. Nothing is gained by overloading the title with descriptive detail that belongs somewhere in the article, perhaps the first sentence or soon thereafter, as suggested by Herostratus. Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No The topic of these articles is the number or percent. That the info we have on these topics consists of estimates is beside the point. We don't rename the article on Mexico "Some high-level information about Mexico". Mexico is the topic; the title just needs to identify the topic as such and doesn't need to describe the nature of the information being offered about it. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Name for Brewster, your thoughts needed

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Owen Brewster about his common name. Please comment.--User:Namiba 17:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC on stadium naming policy

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.

Withdrawn by proponent. – .Raven (.talk)

---

For a long time with regard to the name of sports stadiums with sponsored names, it has generally been an unwritten rule on sports stadium articles (particularly in UK football and rugby related ones) that these names are not used for the title unless the stadium has never had a non-sponsored name to avoid Wikipedia being seen to endorse commercial entities. Henceforth, I wish to formalise this by proposing that a section be added to the Article Titles policy stating:

• "Where stadiums and arenas have been named after a sponsor, the original non-sponsored name shall always be used for the title (regardless of WP:COMMONNAME) unless the stadium has never had a non-sponsored name in its history." The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this would have plenty of laughable results like FedExField→Jack Kent Cooke Stadium (although it's debatable whether FedExField or FedEx Field is the common name). There's no reason for stadiums to be an exception to COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. Star Garnet (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but no support for hard inflexible wording. Support recognising that sponsored names are a version of promotion, and that collusion by the commercial media to promote sponsored names renders the commercial media non independent. To avoid the insidious pervasive commercial pressure, give more weight to noncommercial media. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  I assume the premise is that there is no COMMONNAME due to inadequate quality sources. COMMONNAME is the first preference. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose making a policy. Use the WP:COMMONNAME when there is doubt. —Kusma (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If a sponsored name is the most common name it is the proper title, period. That's fundamental and general Wikipedia policy that applies to everything. The unwritten convention has long been a violation of titling policy and should never have be "enforced". Trying to do that is actually far more POV-pushing than just using the common sponsored name. It not only should be written into the policy, it should be stopped permanently. oknazevad (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This is tough policy to endorse because there are so many different scenarios with stadium names. This is best left up being handled on a case by case basis by using WP:COMMONNAME. Nemov (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - First, I think the premise of the proposal (that there is an “unwritten rule”) is inaccurate. Yes, there are times when we ignore an official name change (and thus continue to use an “old” pre-sponsorship name for our article title)… but that is not due to any objection to the commercial nature of the new (sponsored) name, but because the old name continues to be in COMMON usage (despite the official name change). So… as others have said, leave this to WP:COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• I see where the wind is going for WP:SNOW so I will formally Withdraw the RFC according to the rules here. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Since it doesn't say Closed, I add my oppose. I suppose I disagree with sponsored names, but that isn't the question here. Gah4 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2023 (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.

Clarifying titles on articles about words

Generally, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, sometimes it does have articles about words (as distinct from the concepts they represent). Currently there's a discussion on Talk:Cisgender about the problem that – despite the short description "Gender identity descriptor" – some editors are editing the lead to discuss the concept, while the rest of the article is about the word as such. @Mathglot: tells me I should bring my own suggestion here, because it may have wider applicability:

May I throw another hat (=idea) in the ring with the rest? Consistently adding "(word)" to articles about words not concepts, might be a good way to indicate the real topic to both readers and editors. It would also make for a quick way to point out misunderstanding: "The article Cisgender (word) discusses that word (e.g. its definition[s], etymology, usage, history) rather than the concept it represents." – repeat elsewhere with only the article named changing.

Alternatively, make that sentence a banner or hat using {{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}.

The first part seems to me consistent with other titles that add "(book)" or "(film)" where, absent those additions, the title might be taken as referring to a person, place, or event. In this case, I am suggesting it even though there is no other article to disambiguate it from, just to reduce misunderstanding of the referent. Broadly, the same might apply to any other meta-references besides words, to satisfy WP:PRECISION.

As for the second part: the more general template is:
{{about|what it IS about|some other usage|where to find that other usage}}
– .Raven  .talk 19:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think your suggestion about adding a disambiguator like (word) (or 'term', or 'expression', depending on the article) could be very helpful in articles about words. The vast majority of our 7M articles are about concepts not words, and so it's not surprising that the very few exceptions cause confusion among editors, and this would be a helpful modification to the WP:Article title policy that will help prevent that. The article LGBT, for example, is entirely about the word, its history, evolution, variants, and so on; despite the hatnote and italic title, there have still been numerous good-faith attempts to alter it to discuss "LGBT" as a concept. These edits are essentially due to a misunderstanding of the use–mention distinction on the part of these good-faith editors, but that is hardly surprising, given the subtlety of the topic. Following Raven's suggestion at the Cisgender article would result in a title of "Cisgender (word)", which would likely avoid most of the confusion. And if and when it was time to change the focus of the article from word to concept, the title would help clarify the situation, and require a title change, as well it should. I support this proposal. I think that the article title policy should be modified to add wording about this. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

One of the biggest misunderstandings in Wikipedia is the false dichotomy that regarding this there are only two things:

• Topic that inherently exists, and words are merely a way to give it a name
• Exceptions where the article is clearly and flatly only about a word

While the title of the page and section sort of hide it, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject explains (with examples) that many topics exist in the "gray area" in between. Please read...It's just two short paragraphs and makes my main point here. It gives several examples where the word somewhat "creates" the topic by grouping things that don't otherwise have a common name. And I think that this is a very important area to gain recognition and handle. One way or the other, I think that the end result is that these articles need to recognize that they are covering the term and usually not the place to cover that which is created/grouped/renamed by the term. North8000 (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... these articles need to recognize that they are covering the term and usually not the place to cover that which is created/grouped/renamed by the term."

Yes, thank you! I would amend this only to add "editors of" in front of that, to clarify who can/should recognize that.

And my proposal was meant to help editors (and readers) recognize that. – .Raven  .talk 21:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 about a false dichotomy. In a way, I think the false impression of a dichotomy is the result of looking at snapshots in time, rather than an evolution, which is a better representation of what happens with certain topics that start out as a neologism and eventually evolve into a well known term with plenty of discussion about the concept. It's not an either-or, it depends when you look at it.

The article "Cisgender" is a good example. In the 2000s, the word started to be mentioned in blogs such as this 2002 post about cisgender Emi Koyama's blog, and gradually became adopted and used in context, such as in Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. For quite some time, that's all they were, mentions or uses as an adjective in context, but nothing like a discussion about the concept that would pass GNG. Since, then, there's been more coverage; the last article section on normativity and privilege seems to have some of that (to the extent that the refs are not just dictionary defintions); whether the concept of "cisgender" now has enough in-depth coverage to be considered WP:Notable for a standalone article is a subject for discussion at Talk:Cisgender and not here.

But the point is, that the rare neologism that deserves an article about the word itself, as described in the policy section that North8000 draws attention to, often evolve, and ultimately the concept may become notable as well, and it could either evolve to become a separate article, or more likely in most cases, it becomes the new topic, with the previous content being encapsulated in a new, #Terminology section. Until that happens, an article about a word needs some way to highlight that the word is the topic: the content of the WP:LEADSENTENCE is one way to do that, the italic title per MOS:WAW is another way, and .Raven's proposal would be a very helpful addition, and likely would be more effective than either of the other two methods. Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that one thing that fuels the problem is the widely accepted mantra that Wikipedia articles can't be about words. While that is a useful mantra most of time (because we aren't a dictionary) it obscures the fact that there are times when we need to recognize that the article should be (only) about the term. Most of the time we fail at that, partially because the title taken literally is about a real world topic, albeit inherently though a POV lens and usually a grouping created by the lens of the term. And of course, sometime politics affects whether or not we succeed. An article which does a really good job at this is Gay agenda . Although the topic is prima facie about gay related initiatives, the article recognizes that it needs to be about the term and is not the place to cover gay related initiatives, and successfully limits itself to coverage of the term.

So I think that the proposal here is a step in the right direction. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I had forgotten about Gay agenda; it's a really good example of this, and you're right—it does a much better job than most "word" articles at sticking to the topic. Nevertheless, I'd excuse an editor (especially a newer one) from diving in and adding material to the lead that wasn't about the word—and the proposal under discussion would help to avoid that. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is also covered at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject (shortcut: WP:WORDISSUBJECT) which in my view probably should reside on this page, with a summary there. Mathglot (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I see you already linked that section of WP:NOTDICT above. Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Attempt to turn this discussion into a proposal

In an attempt to turn this discussion into a proposal, it would be to add:

A typical article is on a topic which exists independently of the title and the where title is merely used to identify it. At the other extreme are topics which clearly need to be only about a term. For example, an article about a racial slur is clearly not the place to cover the race which is the target of the slur and covering that race in that article would tend to promote legitimacy of the slur. The "gray area" in between is when it appears to be about a topic, but where the topic is created by the term and does not exist as a separate and distinct topic without the term. Usually this creation is done by grouping, renaming and applying a certain "lens" to topics that are covered elsewhere. Those articles should be treated in the same way; the coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The article is NOT the place to cover the topic which is the object of the term. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia. World music, Political correctness, Gay agenda, Lake Michigan–Huron are examples. In many cases, it's best to clarify this by including "(term)" or "(word)" or "(concept)" in the title.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; just need to see what the scope should be and how to word it. Agree with "(term)" or "(word)" and some of the other parenthetical disambiguators (see examples of current usage below), but I would consider that except for the handful of word articles, all the rest of our 6.7M articles are about a concept, so concept is the unmarked term in the domain of Wikipedia article title types, and hence does not require a disambiguator. Mathglot (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

BTW the linked articles show various degrees of success and failure at following this concept. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, as do many others; see examples below. Mathglot (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Examples of current usage

I didn't realize that use of "(word)" as a parenthetical disambiguator is already in practice, and it's not the only one; there is also "(term)", "(slang)", various parts of speech such as "(adjective)", "(pronoun)" and "(interjection)", and various other disambiguators:

Articles about a word which use a parenthetical disambiguator

Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of articles that are about a word, and which have a parenthetical disambiguator in the title (unstyled links; proper italicization (DISPLAYTITLE) not shown): A (word) Fruit (slang) Kung fu (term) Man (word) Oi (interjection) Orange (word) Overkill (term) Twink (gay slang) Underdog (term) Wino (slang term) Many articles about a word also have another page with the same title, minus the parenthetical disambiguator, which is an article about a concept: (unstyled links; proper italicization (DISPLAYTITLE) not shown): Antidisestablishmentarianism (word) and Antidisestablishmentarianism Data (word) and Data Football (word) and Football God (word) and God Hip (slang) and Hip Jazz (word) and Jazz Jesus (name) and Jesus Jew (word) and Jew Juniper (given name) and Juniper Man (word) and Man Marijuana (word) and Marijuana One (pronoun) and One Pope (title) and Pope Poseidon (ship name) and Poseidon Sādhu (Pali word) and Sādhu Square (slang) and Square Witch (word) and Witch Sometimes the shorter title is a disambig page: American (word) and American Ebonics (word) and Ebonics Elle (Spanish pronoun) and Elle Eureka (word) and Eureka Mu (negative) and Mu Shina (word) and Shina

On the other hand, that usage is by no means universal. Here are some articles about a word, that do not use a parenthetical disambiguator:

Articles about a word which do NOT use a parenthetical disambiguator
Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of articles that are about a word, and which do not use a parenthetical disambiguator (unstyled links; proper italicization (DISPLAYTITLE) not shown): Bluestocking Cisgender Gay agenda Goy Ghoti Latinx LGBT Like Meh Milord Mohammedan Non-heterosexual Please Positive anymore Quisling Tranny Yes and no

And there are any number of other articles which say they are about a word, but then reading the article, it's hard to say if they are or they aren't; these articles might need some work to clarify what the actual topic is, and an {{unfocused}} maintenance template to be added until they are: Dark Ages (historiography), Sede vacante, Straight-acting, and many others. (I waive TPO for the purpose of adding more examples to the lists above; if you have good examples to add, feel free to do so.)

The current usage appears to be somewhat arbitrary, and seems to indicate that some kind of update to the policy to provide guidance on how to handle such articles should be made; see the subsection above. Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that this is an important and worthwhile effort. There's no one perfect place to do it, but doing it here is as good as anywhere and helpful even if covered elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

slang or casual usage?

It seems to me that in some cases, what might be considered a WP:COMMONNAME is actually more slang or casual usage. Right now, I am thinking of how to reply to a name change proposal. I believe we should not necessarily use slang names, unless they are especially common. Gah4 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Which proposal? or at least an example? Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping to ask generally, but it is this one: Talk:Subnetwork#Requested_move_28_June_2023. Gah4 (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

In the "Non-neutral but common names" section, please change "should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to" to "should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to", i.e. do not italicise "what readers" in the second half when it's not italicised in the first half. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:D999:8C1F:CA47:4F8B (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Differentiating places

As sometimes two different places in completely different areas can have the same name, I would use parentheses, right? However, I am unsure if I am supposed to put the city, subdivision, or country inside of it, if there is a specific preference. (e.g. Should I use Cool House (North Carolina) and Cool House (California) or Cool House (Asheville) and Cool House (Fresno)?) DarkNight0917 (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

DarkNight0917, the standard is to use a comma, not parentheses, when disambiguation is needed for place names. See for example, Paris, Tennessee and Paris, Texas and Paris, Virginia. Like parentheses, a comma is also recognized and processed properly by the WP:PIPETRICK. As to whether to use it at all, it would depend on things like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, which is how you end up with the article entitled "Paris" being about the city everyone expects when you talk about "Paris", and not one of the others listed above.

Getting back to your original question about what item to put in the disambiguation position, my interpretation of it would be to put what reliable sources generally put in that position, which for places in U.S. states, is normally the state name, as states don't normally have two communities with the same name. For the rare exceptions and how to deal with them, see for example, Tuckahoe, Suffolk County, New York and Tuckahoe (village), New York. Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably inaccurate link in #Foreign names and Anglicization

For ideas on how to deal with situations where there are several competing foreign terms, see "Multiple local names" and "Use modern names" in the geographical naming guideline. Such discussions can benefit from outside opinions so as to avoid a struggle over which language to follow.

(emphasis added by me) The link in the second sentence points to WP:RFC. This seems like a very clear case where the link should point to WP:RM, as that's where article title disputes are handled at first. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)