Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Question about band name examples given at this guideline page

The MoS says the indefinite article "The" should only be used to open an article title about a band if it is part of the official proper-noun name. It then gives The Beatles and The Rolling Stones as examples. However those articles lowercase "the" in the band's name, with apparently dozens of editors and numerous discussions over the years reaching consensus that "the" is not part of their proper-noun name. (I disagree, but obviously I go along with consensus.) Conversely, the band The Byrds has "The" as part of its proper-noun name (a la The New York Times, The Old Man and the Sea.) So given that "the" is apparently not part of "the Beatles" and "the Rolling Stones", shouldn't those articles be titled simply "Beatles" and "Rolling Stones" (a la Eurythmics)? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a perennial fight with no resolution in sight. I just do what most sources do (not even music-specialist ones), and capitalize "The" when it is almost universally used with an act name ("The Beatles", "The Blue Man Group", "Siouxsie & The Banshees"), but not when there's strong evidence the act themselves avoid the article (the band's name is "Pixies", so avoid the construction "the Pixies" except when it really seems necessary, and in such a case, don't capitalize "the" except at the start of a sentence). I.e., until the matter is settled, just write as you think best, per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR policies, and if people want to obsess about it, and "correct" you, let them, and move on without fighting over it. In a year or five years or whatever, it'll eventually settle out one way or the other. I also use "&" band names of the "X & The Ys" form, as this is very common in reliable sources and helps group the parts of the name together. I don't know if MOS even says anything about this, and kind of don't care, because it's another thing people have fought bitterly over for years. As for titles in particular, because there's no consensus on "the"/"The" in running text, even for an obvious case like The Beatles, there's not really going to be any consensus to move/rename, either. Doing an RM on such articles is just asking for a disruptive controversy for no gain.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC

See box. Formerip (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Result: The definite article may be used to disambiguate articles in certain circumstances.

There were 8 supports and 4 opposes. One oppose was based on the objection that the DABNAME guidance would be affected, but how this was the case was not explained and it doesn't seem true to me (nothing stemming from what has been discussed here would mean we would not retain the DAB page Hulk, for example). A second oppose was made on the basis that "the" should only be used if it is part of the formal name of the article subject. However, that argument seems contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. A third oppose suggests that "the" is insufficient disambiguation because we use it in many articles. I can't work out if there is a typo in the comment or not, but this doesn't make sense to me as an argument. The fourth oppose was on the basis that it would be confusing. I don't think any of these are knockout arguments, and so the numerical victory of the supports should be recognised.

There also seems to be consensus that the applciation of the principle should be resticted to article titles where there is genuine natural disambiguation (e.g. one this is commonly called "The Foo", the other is called "Foo" and not normally "The Foo") and a genuine need for disambiguation. There also seems to be consensus that a case-by-case approach should be taken and common sense applied to avoid unnecessary confusion, and so that conflicting considerations can be taken into account.

Is putting "The" at the beginning of an article title an acceptable innovation for WP:NATURAL disambiguation?

Context: Recently, a move request at Hulk (comics) to Hulk resulted in a "no consensus" close. Multiple editors, while perhaps opposing the proposed move, suggested moving Hulk (comics) to The Hulk instead (as The Hulk already redirects there). One editor intelligently noticed that WP:THE currently is directly opposed to that, as per its dictum that The Joker redirect to Joker (comics), and not vice-versa. But should that be the case?

  • Please respond support if you believe adding "the" is OK in order to disambiguate.
  • Please respond oppose if you think adding "the" should not be allowed, as is currently the case.

Thanks for helping Wikipedia. Red Slash 04:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Fandraltastic, In ictu oculi,  SMcCandlish, JIP, Peter Isotalo, Guelf, Zzyzx11, Necrothesp, victor falk, Tenebrae, Kablammo from the move request. Red Slash 04:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Isn't natural disambiguation already implied as one of the conditions at the top?
    If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article, the word with article can be used as the name of a page about that meaning, and the word without article can be used as the name of a separate page
That sounds like natural disambiguation to me. Or am I misreading it? Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: This obsessive avoidance of "The" is getting tiresome. It's especially boneheaded in the case of the Joker, the Flash and the Hulk, among others (including real people like the Rock before he started acting under his real name, Dwayne Johnson). It really is entirely natural disambiguation. The Hulk is the Hulk; a hulk is a ship. The Flash is the Flash; a flash is burst of light (or nudity). Etc. These are exceptional cases. I have no problem with us not putting "The" at the beginning of article titles like Duodenum or Florida keys. Even where actual disambiguation could occur, using "The" isn't often the best way to do this. For the Hulk, the Joker, etc., it's pretty obviously the best way. (For whoever would ask, "But what about the Joker in a deck of cards?", that's a joker, not the Joker, or a Joker, or the joker (decks that have jokers have two, more than one deck have them, and we don't capitalize the names of pieces of gaming or sports equipment - you throw a baseball and flick a tiddlywink, not the Baseball or the Tiddlywink.) This is just like our general practice of avoiding plural article titles; there are always exceptions. We need to recognize that "The" has exceptions other than titles of published works.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (as a general guideline). Whether or not "The" is enough to disambiguate a title is dependent on how notable the title is. If the topic is the clear primary topic known for containing a "The" in its name (such as stated above with characters from comic books), then I would say "Yes". However, if the title is obviously not notable enough to contain a "The" in its name to distinguish itself from other titles without the word "The", such as the examples The Spy (2012 South Korean film) vs Spy (2012 Russian film) (where the different disambiguator is the country rather than the word "the"), then I would say "No". In fact, the more I think about this, the more I believe that the usage of the word "The" as a disambiguator is really exclusive to comic books characters and people who use pseudonyms (SMcCandlish brings up a good point with "The Rock"), and nothing else. Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I have changed my stance to completely oppose. Allowing titles to be disambiguated by the word "the" also affects the disambiguation page-naming guideline at WP:DABNAME. In fact, I'm now going to have to post a note on that page about this discussion, if one hasn't been posted yet. Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — There are formal, proper-noun titles like The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, but "the" is simply not part of the character's formal name in the case of the Hulk, the Joker, the Flash and so on. We speak of hundreds of thousands of things as "the," but that still doesn't make the object or the Wikipedia article "The Empire State Building" or "The New York Post" or "The Kentucky Derby". Likewise, it's not "The Flash (comics)". Unless we want to start putting "The" at Empire State Building, New York Post, Kentucky Derby and untold number of other Wikipedia articles — rendering alphabetization useless on Category pages, because half of everything will be under "T" — then we should leave this longstanding rule alone. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Tenebrae: Luckily, we have {{DEFAULTSORT}} to resolve the category sorting issues. (If this gets approved, using {{DEFAULTSORT}} needs to be a highly-recommended addition to performing the moves.) But yeah, what you stated is essentially why I cannot support this as a general guideline update. Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • We would continue to use the most precise title where possible, so moving Empire State Building to a less precise title shouldn't be an issue. The question is whether the addition of "The" is a better form of disambiguation than the parenthetical, where disambiguation is necessary. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the Hulk, the Joker, the Flash, the Phantom etc. are exceptions to general "the" rules since the use of "The+inanimate noun" as a moniker for a human is a special case in usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think the addition of the "The" is a far more natural form of disambiguation in cases like these than the addition of "(comics)". (Actually I think a discussion needs to be had about that "comics" disambiguator in general, it can be very misleading to readers when the page is about a character. If we were going to disambiguate, say, Darth Vader, we wouldn't move it to Darth Vader (film), despite the medium where the character originated.) -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. While it may not be a universal rule, a prepended article like "the" can certainly serve as a natural disambiguator for any topic where there are many uses without such an article, and one clear primary use that includes the article. bd2412 T 15:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I agree that obsessive avoidance of "The" is tiresome, it's what we have, many titles with The where a reader expects The, and this means tha a The is insufficient disambiguation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that is something we can work around on a case-by-case basis. If even using "The" still causes ambiguity, it is obviously not a good disambiguator. However, there are cases in which it would be helpful. (The Hulk being one possible example) Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for the same reasons that SMcCandlish gave above. Holdek (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. We're talking about cases where it *is* sufficient disambiguation, as in the examples given. — kwami (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per SMcCandlsih and Kwamikagami - this will only apply in cases where disambiguation is needed and putting "The" at the front of the title is a natural title supported by sources and it would make the new title unambiguous or the primary topic for "The (name)". If there is any potential confusion generated by moving to "The X" that was not present at "X (disambiguator)" then the hatnote and/or disambiguation page can be adjusted as appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as a means for disambiguation - This would be helpful to have on a case-by-case basis. It would be only necessary to include it if it is necessary for disambiguation. Other editors have a good point when they say that this may cause a precedent to have a bunch of other articles unnecessarily start with "The". However, I think a case-by-case basis approach would work around this - a move discussion, perhaps, on the talk page of an article in question to determine whether such disambiguation is necessary, or if there is a better alternative to using "The". Mz7 (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I oppose adding "the" to disambiguate, it's very confusing. I do think that some proper nouns begin with the word "The", and that should be respected. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "The Hulk" is obviously a clear disambiguator. This is also in line with my thoughts in the discussion at Talk:The National Party. Number 57 20:51, 4 June 2014 (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.

RfC Proposal that the best way to present superlative based context specific lists is to use the article

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.
The consensus is to oppose the change. AlbinoFerret 15:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To save giving up on this I thought I'd have a go with an RfC.

This comes after the compilation and presentation of a number of extensive multiple RMs which, while gaining limited support, have otherwise been shot down in flames. I do not, however, consider this to be forum shopping as various of the less positive contributors have commented that the presentation of an RfC would be an appropriate route to take. Base pages for the current multiple RfC are as follows:

At personal preference I think that it would be beneficial if a decision can be made one way or another on this topic before the closure of the RMs so as to, potentially, save the effort that went into their compilation.

On the basis that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia I conducted a search on books in the form: (most OR least OR lightest OR heaviest OR tallest OR longest OR shortest) AND "in the". Results that contained a "fooest" content followed by something like an "in bar" content were, in sequence, as follows:

  1. The Most Beautiful Girl in the World
  2. The Most Misused Verses in the Bible
  3. The Most Important Fish in the Sea
  4. The Most Dangerous Area in the World
  5. The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business
  6. The Most Wonderful Doll in the World
  7. The Most Dangerous Man In The World
  8. The Most Important Little Boy in the World
  9. Vesuvius: The most famous volcano in the world
  10. The tallest, shortest, longest, greenest, brownest animal in the jungle!
  11. The Most Successful Small Business in The World
  12. Burj Khalifa: The Tallest Tower in the World
  13. The Least Examined Branch: The Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State
  14. A short synopsis of the most essential points in Hawaiian grammar
  15. A brief summary, in plain language, of the most important laws of England concerning women
  16. Catalonia: An Emerging Economy : the Most Cost-effective Ports in the Mediterranean Sea
  17. The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World
  18. The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam,..
  19. Notices of the Most Remarkable Fires in Edinburgh
  20. Most Beautiful House in the World

I went through 18+ examples (not including, presumably, reprints or the "in Most of the World" example) that consistently used "the fooest" before finding one example, which happened to be at the beginning of the phrasing, which omitted the article.


My next step in research involved a web based search on grammar guide superlative

Results (with quotation of sections of relevant content) in sequence are presented as follows:

http://esl.fis.edu/grammar/rules/comp.htm presenting:

1-syllable adjectives: add -est to the adjective (plus the)

  • My sister is the tallest in our family.
  • Yesterday was the coldest day of the year so far.

... and so on

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/adjectives/comparative-and-superlative-adjectives presenting:

  • Superlative adjectives:
We use the with a superlative:
It was the happiest day of my life.
Everest is the highest mountain in the world.
That’s the best film I have seen this year.
I have three sisters, Jan is the oldest and Angela is the youngest.

http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/comparative-and-superlative/ presenting:

SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVES

Superlative adjectives are used to describe an object which is at the upper or lower limit of a quality (the tallest, the smallest, the fastest, the highest). They are used in sentences where a subject is compared to a group of objects.

Noun (subject) + verb + the + superlative adjective + noun (object).

The group that is being compared with can be omitted if it is clear from the context (final example below).

EXAMPLES

  • My house is the largest one in our neighborhood.
  • This is the smallest box I've ever seen.
  • Your dog ran the fastest of any dog in the race.
  • We all threw our rocks at the same time. My rock flew the highest. ("of all the rocks" is understood)

This text is as presented on the website and represents basic grammar.

The fourth website - http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/adjectivesuper.html - shows that even the Germans get this right. Why can't we???


My concern is that, at present, Wikipedia presents examples of use of syntax that, if students were to emulate, would lose them marks.

I have also seen nothing similar to the current Wikipedia title presentations in contents like Britannica.


Many list type articles that contain superlatives are linked to Category:Lists of superlatives

GregKaye 15:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. LegoBot invited me here. I'm not sure this is really all that important. For sentence fragments, the definite article is occasionally dropped. For example: Academy Award for Best Picture, not Academy Award for the Best Picture. Sometimes it does sound wrong when definite articles are dropped, but it's often fine to do so. I don't really see any problems with the status quo, but I can't bring myself to care very much about the situation, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate I can see that but I think there is a difference between presenting, say an out of context:
  • "Award for Best Picture"
and presenting, say, and in context:
  • "The Loveliness of the Most Beautiful Girl in the World"
There is no way it would be written as:
  • "Loveliness of Most Beautiful Girl in the World".
There might even be a problem with:
  • "Loveliness of Most Beautiful Girl"
The comparison that you have given is not like for like.
GregKaye 09:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned by bot. I would leave the articles as is, and not change the titles to include "the". Here's why: in all of the examples given by Greg the superlative is describing a single noun. "largest one", "smallest box", etc. However, these lists are describing several objects that are part of a group. Since it is not "the" only tallest building on the list, it is one of many buildings on the list (note I could've typed one of the many buildings on the list, acceptable but not necessary). Which means "List of tallest buildings" is just as acceptable as "List of the tallest buildings", and it's shorter, more concise and to the point. Adding "the" to the title is unnecessary, if anything all we would needs is a redirect to the original title if there are worries that someone might search for "list of the..." rather than simply "list of..." -War wizard90 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
War wizard90 Its fair to point out reference to singulars yet the list still includes names of books such as:
  • The Most Misused Verses in the Bible
  • The Most Important Fish in the Sea
  • The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business
  • A short synopsis of the most essential points in Hawaiian grammar
  • A brief summary, in plain language, of the most important laws of England concerning women
  • Catalonia: An Emerging Economy : the Most Cost-effective Ports in the Mediterranean Sea
  • The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam,..
  • Notices of the Most Remarkable Fires in Edinburgh
The previously mentioned http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/adjectivesuper.html also includes the example
  • Some people say that the Maldives have the most beautiful beaches in the world.
While this all sounds lovely, there is no example amongst the grammar guides that presents a superlative when not preceded by "the".
GregKaye 08:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose any change. This is just the argument presented at multiple RMs and rejected by multiple editors at them. As above and as at those discussions there is nothing wrong with the titles as they now are, for the many reasons given, and just as they are perfectly good English, fine as they are.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
As you know this was this was not unanimous and that objection was partly raised due to procedural concern of not consulting via a route such as RfC first. In response to a report that you filed on the case one editor responded to say, "but my gripe was that the method s/he chose to bring about article moves was not ideal (multiple discussion locations for long lists of articles). I prefer a single discussion location of the issue to gauge support before moving to the WP:RM process when the ramifications are so wide. However, I believe s/he could have a legitimate argument and I fully support her/his passion for the issue." GregKaye 08:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Iryna Harpy I appreciate that and I also appreciate that a lot of editors apparently have a real issue with title length. I honestly do not know why this is. We put great store in working through verifiability to make sure sure our facts are right. I don't understand some editor's resistance to the addition of a single syllable which might do the same for our grammar. Some titles are long, some perhaps ridiculously long but, how ever long a title is, the addition of an extra syllable will only make it one single syllable longer. The example you presented was:
And this title is fine as it is as there is no superlative involved.
However there may be other reasons why this title is so long. The related category is titles Category:World War II military equipment of Canada
Perhaps the title could have read:
However any such format would be another thing to be agreed.
With reference to Canada in the Second World War one topic of articles that could be considered relates to our List of longest naval ships in this case an article in current format might read:

List of longest ships in the Canadian Navy during the Second World War

and, in this case, there would be no great increase in this length to achieve:

List of the longest ships in the Canadian Navy during the Second World War

There may be a variety of ways that we can generate efficient titles but I would prefer us to do so without a sacrifice of grammar. At least this would make for one less way in which Wikipedia would be open for criticism. GregKaye 16:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no "sacrifice", the titles are grammatically fine without the definite article, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Your preference may be to add the definite article but it is your preference, nothing more, and that is not enough reason to change policy.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: Per JohnBlackburne, the titles are perfectly acceptable as they stand. You're welcome to check against academic conference papers, theses, etc. as regards the variety of stylistic header and subheader formats dependent on the author's preference. Again, I'll reiterate that while I understand your desire for consistency, your proposal is encompassing more and more article WP:TITLE conventions that would require an unnecessary amount of editor time an energy in order to finalise decisions as to the best method of accommodating controlled vocabulary in the first instance, then maintain such a decision in the second instance.
As I've previously expressed to you, while I acknowledge that I am pedantic, I'm not pedantic to the point of reconstructing a huge (actual number unknown, but growing as the discussion unfurls) number of articles falling afoul of the premise you're working on. Remember that the principles behind WP:CRITERIA are intended to keep titles within the bounds of precision and conciseness. The more they're tampered with, the more likely they are to complicate the process of disambiguation. There's inevitably going to be a trickle-down effect that will impact on more articles and groups of articles. As a logic and logistics problem, my opinion is that it really isn't worth the grief. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Even in our own Wikipedia article content as at Article (grammar)#Definite article the first example given is:

The children know the fastest way home.

Then the second example given is:

Children know the fastest way home.

Either way the guidance that we give is to use the article with a superlative. What work needs to be done? The moves themselves won't take long and I will happily do them. It just seems to me that we are giving advice here that we are not taking. GregKaye 12:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Article content and article WP:TITLE do not follow the same grammatical premises. My concern is that, in changing titles for a few articles, we're overlooking the larger precedent. There is no point in changing the naming convention for one set of articles if it is not reflected across the board. I'm not sure as to how to reiterate this point yet again: either Wikipedia's MoS has to change, or this is an exercise in futility. Why is implementing such changes for the nominated articles more important than the hundreds of articles that don't conform to these standards? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Don't forget this is a style guideline, not a policy, and style guidelines usually follow the consensus established in articles. And the consensus is overwhelmingly that "the" is not needed in such article titles, based on the surveys you have done yourself, GregKaye. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Iryna Harpy I respect the concern but strongly dispute the view that "There is no point in changing ..." I also personally think that the issue of consistency of article presentation, as has been alluded to time again, has been over stated.
Various relevant article titles can perhaps be mentioned in their appearance on this weeks list of 5000 most accessed pages presented as the User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages. Relevant items on the list (for which I see no major problem in most cases) were:
56 List of highest-grossing films
1077 List of most viewed YouTube videos (this was the one I noticed)
1164 List of highest mountains
2397 List of youngest birth mothers
2573 List of best-selling music artists
2732 List of tallest buildings in the world
(which I think should be presented as either: "List of tallest buildings" or "List of the tallest buildings in the world")
2827 List of tallest buildings and structures in the world
(which I think should be presented as either: "List of tallest buildings and structures" or "List of the tallest buildings and structures in the world")
3282 List of the most subscribed users on YouTube This one has got the grammar right and it has caused no problem to the daily running of Wikipedia. Conversely, I think it displays an example of good grammar which will, if anything, give readers an example that may help them follow the principles of good grammar in their own writings and contents.
3596 List of best-selling video games
4583 List of most popular websites
4797 List of best-selling books
4902 List of tallest people
I do not personally think that the existence of titles such as those mentioned above presents an issue with regard to an, I think, sensible presentation of title as proposed such as:
List of the largest airlines in Africa
List of the most common surnames in Asia
List of the tallest bridges in the world
List of the world's largest passenger ships
Again, I don't think that these titles fit very well with the pattern of:
List of the most subscribed users on YouTube
and I don't see that this title has caused a problem.
I also believe that the algorithms or other programming content that govern categories will be well able to handle the insertion of "the" into many of the titles.
If anything I think that if readers saw a difference in titles such as List of tallest buildings and List of the tallest bridges in the world all that they would do is perhaps take note that we had done something different with the grammar and, if anything, I think they might respect that. GregKaye 05:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: I thought I'd give this RfC a little more time for further input, but it appears to have gone stale. For me, the prominent question of how many articles this would potentially affect remains unanswered. While you've produced examples of some articles that could be moved without problems in order to conform to the convention you've proposed, I'm sure they only represent the tip of the iceberg as regards the true number of lists across Wikipedia. Unless someone is willing to spend days going through all lists and moving them, then stay on top of new articles to ensure that any new lists conform, I still don't see how such a proposal could be enforced and maintained. While I can appreciate the desire for uniformity, the reality is disproportionately time consuming for a relatively small regular community of editors to dedicate time and energy to. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I think that most if not all of the relevant articles are found via: Category:Lists of superlatives. This contains articles such as List of heaviest bells which seem to me to be fine as it mentions the superlative without giving parameters such as "... in the World". The same category also contains articles with contexts and definitely indicated superlatives as follows:

It also contains non contextualise articles:

To me the question here is "of where" or similar?

However it also contains content such as:

and I think that these should be more sensibly called:

I have honestly been bewildered as to what the problem is here. As an encyclopedia we are not getting getting things right but are instead opting for newspaper headlinese. I personally find this shameful and sloppy and something that I don't believe that any other encyclopedia or credible reference source would commonly tolerate.

GregKaye 04:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Having given this RfC even more time, there's been no ongoing input from anyone outside of ourselves. Whatever decision/conclusion we come to, or dispute, there simply hasn't been enough interest in the subject generated to suggest consensus. I'm not sure as to how this can be wrapped up other than as having gone stale. Personally, I would have no objections if the articles you've presented above contained the sum total of lists not conforming to natural language usage, but they don't. Implementing such a change would require a lot of time and work by regular editors in order to bring all list titles up to par. Maintaining the integrity and conformity for new list articles created across a project the size of Wikipedia would be a huge ongoing task. I really don't know what else to say on the matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy Looking at the above lists and looking at Category:Lists of superlatives I am not sure what conformity you are referring to. My argument could be phrased to stress an importance of "grammatical integrity". There is an option to choose the route of newspaper headlinese or we can choose the route proscribed in various manuals of grammar. GregKaye 06:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now I comprehend that we're travelling along different paths. I'm also taking into account such categories as Category:Lists_of_oldest_people. You're not, however, taking into account the fact that we're talking about article TITLEs, and that you're not going to identify all such articles (particularly articles deeply embedded in the sub-category lists) that easily. I can point to List of countries by refugee population as a single instance. While it is suitably grammatically formed, I've encountered many, many lists that haven't been categorised intuitively or well, and don't adhere to your projected options. I think you've jumped the gun by assuming that we're now at the point of discussing which route would be preferential. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2015 (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.

RfC re: naming conventions

An RfC at Talk:The Phantom#Requested move 5 July 2015 concerns what appears to be a violation of Naming conventions. Interested editors are invited to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Apply this Guideline to Redirects

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.
Consensus is clear that redirects with an extra "the" (or lacking a required one) be allowed as they aid searching and especially linking. --GRuban (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: change the first sentence to "This article is about naming conventions for Wikipedia articles AND REDIRECTS" adding the words "and redirects"

Several editors have suggested that this policy does not apply to redirects. This seems counterproductive for redirects are commonly turned into articles. All the logic of the policy regarding search etc applies equally to redirects.

  • Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as these are not needed per normal Google search engines - however support leaving a few major ones likely to be searched via Wikipedia search bar and currently used as redirects (The United States, The United Kingdom, The United Nations, etc). But we don't need one for every single possible combination of proper nouns ie the history of the United States. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The guideline does not, and should not, apply to redirects. In many cases, redirects with an extra "the" will aid both searching and linking. (The most obvious example is newspapers - many newspapers have "The" in their name and many do not. If you're looking for or linking to a newspaper article, you can't be trusted to guess whether or not that particular paper will have "The" in the article title or not.) More generally, if people use "the" something as a search term, then it's good to have a redirect there. The history of the United States is an excellent example - it's getting plenty of page views and leads people where they want to go, so it's a good redirect; and no guideline can change what search terms people will use.
Some "the" redirects may not be as useful, but many of them will still be cheap; meaning, yes, we didn't really need them, but now that they are here we shouldn't delete them either. Actually bad "the" redirects can and should be deleted, but not because they violate a naming convention for articles. Sideways713 (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sideways and per common sense. Redirects are not articles and they serve different purposes. The proposal, essentially, is that we should only have "the" at the start of the redirect if there is a "the" at the start of the article. However, this doesn't make sense. If the title of the article should start with "the", then it will start with "the" and there is no room for a redirect beginning with "the". If the article should not start with "the" then it won't start with "the", but that doesn't prevent that a redirect starting with "the" being a reasonable term to use when searching or linking. It is all too easy to assume that everyone entering a term into our search bar, or adding a link to an article, is automatically familiar with all our article naming conventions, or even knows whether the title ought to begin with a "The". A quick quiz should illustrate the point. How many of these groups have a "the" at the start of their name, and how many don't? And if you don't know, why would a redirect from "The Foo" to "Foo" be objectionable but a redirect from "Bar" to "The Bar" be unobjectionable? The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Spice Girls, The Animals, The Eagles, The Pleasure Mob, The Rap Pack, The Hughes Turner Project, The Bleeding Heart Band, The Clockwork Flowers, The Fat Tulips, The Montanas, The Muffin Men... BencherliteTalk 12:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, incidentally, if you want to start a request for comment, it's actually quite helpful to use {{RFC}} so that it gets displayed elsewhere as a request for comment. Otherwise it doesn't work, really. I've added the template for you this time. BencherliteTalk 12:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sideways and WP:RPURPOSE. When a title could begin with The, it's common sense to have that alternative title as a redirect. It's helpful for our readers to find what they are looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose. Although redirects will sometimes follow this guide they will often not, in particular as when a article title includes or omits the definite/indefinite article a redirect will often be created to deal with the other case. E.g. Old Man and the Sea is a redirect to The Old Man and the Sea. The redirect does not follow this guideline quite deliberately; it exists for e.g. people who know the name but not well enough to realise "The" is part of it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose redirects have more purposes than one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Oppose per all of the above. The most common use of redirects is to make sure that titles that fail WP:AT and the naming convention guidelines, but which someone might conceivably search for, get them to the right article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not understand What might anyone do if this rule were changed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, I think we could expect to see many redirects of the form "The Foo → Foo" deleted. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think what we should be proposing is: "If 'the Foo' is common in running text, then we should keep redirect 'The Foo'; otherwise delete." But I'm not sure whether we even need to write that down as a guideline. Deryck C. 15:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sideways and per common sense. This policy is unnec. on redirects. Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this passed, then we'd have to delete The Los Angeles Times, which is a redirect to Los Angeles Times. I can't imagine why we'd do such a thing. Even if you gave a pass to all newspaper article titles, then we'd have to delete The Melvins, which redirects to Melvins. Equally unthinkable. OK, so maybe you give a pass to all newspapers and rock bands. Now what about The United States, The Netherlands, and The Ukraine? OK, so newspapers, rock bands, and countries. And the list of exceptions just keeps growing and growing. I haven't even gotten to book titles (The Childe Cycle), royalty (The Queen of England), or stock phrases (The end of the world). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2015 (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.

articles or pages

Resolved
 – RfC above closed against this proposal.

The nomenclature in this policy, guideline, whatever it is, is confusing. I have rolled back a change by User:Guy Macon to where it was when I pointed out the inconsistency at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_3#The_Scott_Block_Theatre, to which User:Tavix and User:Guy Macon were the only contributors except me, the nom.

It was a pretty minor nom in itself on a Neelix redirect per WP:X1 that I was not quite sure of. The WP:THE discussioon is really rather tangential to what we do about the redirect for The Scott Block Theatre. (I can stir the shit by asking why do we not create The Scott Block Theater as {{R from incorrect spelling}}).

Essentially we have to decide whether WP:THE is for articles (i.e. anything in reader-facing space except redirects) or pages (i.e. anything that has a URL accessible from the Wikimedia back-end). The language in the self-declared "article" (in the intro: I argue it is not an article, articles live in mainspace not WP space) flips and flops between saying "article name", "article title", "page name" and "page". This is not exactly a definitive way of stating the guideline or policy. Oh, sorry, British, being polite. American English: This is a fucking crap way to make bollox out of a simple statement, geddit?

I should appreciate others' views. Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Fukkit, we do have The Scott Block Theater, another Neelix creation, sheesh. I should have just taken WP:X1 like other editors do without checking. Have rod, have spine, will manufacture. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we please discuss the question at hand (whether WP:THE applies to Wikipedia articles or to all Wikipedia pages) without getting bogged down with a discussion about one individual page? And can we please keep it consistent, either saying that it applies to Wikipedia articles throughout the guideline or saying that it applies to all Wikipedia pages throughout the guideline and not saying one thing one place and another thing another place?

For anyone who thinks this guideline should apply to all Wikipedia pages, you do realize that you are attempting to set a policy that tells me that I cannot name pages in my own userspace (that are not otherwise disruptive) as I choose, right?

And you do realize that you are attempting to set a policy that will not allow both of the two redirects The king of England and King of England to exist, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification

Looking for a policy clarification. I recently made a proposal to change The Pentagon to Pentagon (U.S. Department of Defense). Some editors disagree. I was just looking over this page and, though it seems to largely agree with my suggestion, I see some ambiguities that are not really clarified. Not that this is the most pressing of issues but it seems some consistency in warranted.

As a note of comparison I see that the Encyclopaedia Britannica has the following article titles:

Not that WP has to follow EB precisely but obviously they seem to feel very conservative use of the is warranted.

Thanks.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Without knowing exactly what you mean by "I see some ambiguities that are not really clarified" and "some consistency in warranted", there isn't anything concrete to discuss.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:Manual of Style/Computing#Definite article section proposed for revision

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The WT:MOSCOMP#Definite article section is proposed, here, to be substantially revised for better agreement with RS practice, linguistics, and MoS norms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of an RfC about including the word "The" in song/album article titles

Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. –Matthew - (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguity regarding definite articles in cases such as Nazz, Buzzcocks, and Ramones ...

This only applies if the definite article is used by the band on their musical publications (CDs, audiotapes, records, etc.) or on their official website. [...] In all cases, default to the form of the name that is actually used by the band themselves

What if the band members refer to themselves with a definite article in everyday speech, but omit "the" on record artwork and promotional materials for stylistic purposes? 2601:192:8800:6F60:E10F:3AA3:13F2:83B (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

ខ្ញុំធ្វើម្ដេចនឹងបង Vit veang (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"The arts" or "Arts"?

Please see Talk:The arts#Requested move 10 October 2020. Ham II (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Zero Article should apply to all nouns with categorising letters and numbers in article ledes and article prose

The Advanced Article Usage in English PDF at the John Richard Allison Library at Regent College has it, that:

There is no article before a noun followed by a categorizing letter or number.

Unfortunately, due to the paucity of clear and unambiguous rules, the definite article has incorrectly been pushed to places where it is not required across the entire Wikipedia: "the iPhone 5", for example, and one editor not native to the English language pushing "the GAZ-24". In these and other cases, the definite article should be omitted, because it's not even part of these names.

I'm fine with:

  • "the iPhone", because the letter i has been prepended to the generic word phone.
  • It's the same as "the Windows Store", or "the Apple App Store", and "the Google Play Store" in prose.

Whereas in a lede, the definite article ought to be omitted on the basis of Windows Store used as a proper name:

Windows Store is the name of an app store ...

In prose,

at the Windows Store

is correct, because there are many stores, Windows is the property of Store, and Store is a generic word.

I'm also okay with:

  • "the iPhone SE smartphone", as the definite article is linked to the word smartphone.
  • "the SE", "the 8088", as it mentions the categorising letter or number that represents a particular model, and when it's been established, that the narration in the case of the SE is about an iPhone SE phone, or the Intel 8088 CPU.

Editors rely on "the other articles do it, too", and "the trade press does this, too", "it's descriptive, and you're prescriptive," which arguments are all wrong. And then these editors put the incorrect application of the definite article on Wikipedia, on which millions of native and non-native speakers of the English language rely for correct English grammar, but then readers get it wrong, because of the widespread incorrect application of the definite article on Wikipedia. -Mardus /talk 01:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Oooookay then. What about NYT, do they know how to speak English? The iPhone 5 Scores Well, With a Quibble  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mardus, I'm a native English speaker with a degree in English, and I edit in English at my job. "iPhone SE" and "Intel 8088" are proper nouns. The "SE" and "8088" are part of their names, not categorizing letters or numbers. I think these examples might help:
  1. There are hundreds of iPhones in front of you. Each phone has a unique pair of letters written on it. You take iPhone SE. There is no definite article because the noun is "iPhone" (of any model) with the categorization letters "SE". This use of "SE" is distinct from the specific model "iPhone SE".
  2. There are 3 iPhone SEs in front of you. Each phone is labeled with a number. You take iPhone SE 2. There is no definite article because the noun is "iPhone SE" (that specific model) with the categorization number "2".
  3. You see a phone laying on the ground. It is an iPhone SE. You pick up the iPhone SE. There is a definite article because the noun is "iPhone SE" and there are no categorization letters or numbers.
I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Woodroar. With regard to your third point, many editors would defer to that as an argument in favour of the definite article anywhere before iPhone SE, Nokia 2.2, and like constructs. Not because a grammar rule has supposedly been disestablished, but because there is no clarity about where the definite article is proscribed.
My argument is, that SE also works as a categorising letter or number, and I regard it as an ordinal, too. At least to the extent, that it's part of a product's proper name. As with GAZ-24. SE in this case is like Vista in Windows Vista, and the same rule applies, since we never use the Windows Vista, while the Windows Vista operating system is okay. The crux of my argument is, that the application of zero article rules across Wikipedia is inconsistent, and should be fixed in order to avoid further consternation. -Mardus /talk 07:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Mardus, names of software are treated as general and uncountable nouns in English, so we don't use definite or indefinite articles. I can't think of any exceptions, other than when they're proper adjectives rather than proper nouns, as in the Windows Vista operating system or hand me the Windows Vista CD. I suppose that's because it's difficult to imagine software existing as a physical object. But decidedly physical objects like the iPhone SE and the GAZ-24 do get definite articles. This is simply how these words are treated in American and British English. Sure, there may be dialects where this isn't the case, or even exceptions because (a) English can be messy and (b) language changes. I should also mention that, while we do have guidelines like this page or WP:MOS to (somewhat) standardize writing across the project, they're all based on descriptive language rather than proscriptive. Woodroar (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Woodroar: GAZ-24 and iPhone SE are also general and uncountable nouns in English, and so, the same rule applies. -Mardus /talk 17:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
P.S. I'm not entirely confident about your degree in English, when you've incorrectly spelled prescriptive.
The descriptive vs. prescriptive argument is in my opinion an appeal to disregard the proper rules of grammar.
I'd accept "it's descriptive", if there's a novel word or term. And then only on a case-by-case basis, such as a neopronoun. But not when it comes to syntax. -Mardus /talk 17:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a perfectly acceptable statement in English: I like the iPhone SE. I own 7 iPhone SEs, an iPhone SE for each day of the week. That's both specific and countable. Woodroar (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. The quoted text looks like a statement about a particular iPhone SE as one of multiple devices of the same model that are present: Of the two iPhone SE's, the iPhone SE in Jane's purse was red. Bear in mind, that in "I own seven iPhone SEs," the narrator does not put the definite article before the product name either. -Mardus /talk 19:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mardus, you appear to be arguing English usage with multiple native speakers. This has become disruptive editing. Please stop now. —valereee (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wrong place – this page is about article naming; we already do not use such articles in titles/names of our articles. This proposal seems to be a style proposal. Maybe WT:MOS would be a better place for it. Not sure I'd support it either way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    I should certainly hope not. You of all people don't need another uphill battle. EEng 13:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

arts or Arts

IT sound like Lazz niga Dbz,working with two commond delta zon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRISKILA1 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Contradictions in the WP:DONTUSETHE section?

It suggests to avoid using "The" in front of United Kingdom, Netherlands and United States, but these are not cases where this "don't use the" rule needs to be followed, in fact quite contrary, just look at their articles. Common nouns (dog, apple) don't need to be listed here, they are subject to grammatical rules. "The" in front of Roman Catholic Church, Eiffel Tower, Renaissance, Earth and White House need to follow grammatical rules as well, and this "the" is only capitalized if at the beginning of a sentence, for example:

  • "Earth is the third planet."
  • "Asteroid XYZ would hit the Earth"

English is my second language, but I believe I'm correct here, hence I suggest to remove everything except Ukraine and Sudan (and RMS Queen Elizabeth if "The Queen Elizabeth" is a common mistake) from the list. -Vipz (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it matters whether something is the subject or the object of a sentence. In any case, this page is (at least primarily) about the name of an article, not how a topic is discussed in running prose. I did not find a discussion of United Kingdom, Netherlands and United States in WP:DONTUSETHE. Can you quote the sentence(s) you're talking about? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Requested move 18 December 2022 that may affect the material in this naming convention that discusses that subject. You are invited to participate in that discussion, which should take place there rather than here in order to keep the discussion from getting scattered. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move discussion at Talk:The Gambia

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Gambia#Requested move 20 December 2022 that may affect the material in this naming convention that discusses that subject. You are invited to participate in that discussion, which should take place there rather than here in order to keep the discussion from getting scattered. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What next for capital "T" in The Gambia?

I'm starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#What next for The Gambia? about how to followup on the RfC which changed Wikipedia style to use a capital "T" for The Gambia mid-sentence and mid-article title. Please participate in the discussion there. Thank you,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The RfC was later changed to "no consensus". The discussion referenced above is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 227#What next for The Gambia?. I should have noted that change here when the closure was changed; my apologies for any confusion. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(definite_or_indefinite_article_at_beginning_of_name)/Archive_2&oldid=1218757152"