Talk:Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies

Requested move 27 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Faculty of Oriental Studies. The consensus below seems to support that the page should be moved to a "Faculty of Oriental Studies" title, and that there should not be extra disambiguation at the end of the title (such as ", University of Oxford") per WP:PRECISE. Any additional or former names for the subject can be included in bold in the article’s content to allow readers to know the additional/former names, as well as why searching those names redirected them to this article. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Oriental Institute, Oxford → Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford – current name Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 01:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  18:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). DBigXrayᗙ 01:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Members of WikiProjects University of Oxford and Libraries have been notified of this discussion. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  19:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment it seems to me that the above request is to rename the article from the common name to the official name. I think this is against the policy WP:COMMONNAME and should be discussed before a move. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I would say it was more inline with WP:NAMECHANGES: "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." This isn't a case an the official name vs much more popular common name.

The current title also has the added confusion of being one of the buildings of the faculty, in addition to being its former name. This confusion is reflected in the opening sentence of the article "The Oriental Institute (commonly referred to as the O.I.) of the University of Oxford, England, is home to the university's Faculty of Oriental Studies" - this should be an article about the faculty rather than the building, and changing its name would clarify this.

The longer name has been its official one for at least a decade [1] [2], and the shorter name has dropped almost completely away in recent years (it remains part of its library name but this is also located within the building of the same name). This article was created in 2006 with its current name: it is more than plausible that there has been a shift in common name during that time. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 10:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Faculty of Oriental Studies is a red link. Either that title should become a DAB if "Faculty of Oriental Studies" is its name or it should be at Faculty of Oriental Studies. It should not be disambiguated unless there is a DAB at the base name WP:PRECISE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:PRECISE, "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that". Naming the article "Faculty of Oriental Studies" is ambiguous. There are also Faculties of Oriental Studies at other universities: duckduckgo shows one at Yerevan State University and in Vietnam among others, and that the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at Cambridge was previously known as the Faculty of Oriental Studies [3]. The full title is need to differentiate from these other possibilities. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless they are currently notable then we don't need to distinguish from them. There are lots of biographies here that are not disambiguated even though there will be other people in the world with that name, but are not notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

True, but there are other examples of including the university in the title: Faculty of Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics, University of Oxford and Faculty of Medieval and Modern Languages, University of Oxford (there isn't any other faculty with these exact names). In fact, going through Template:University of Oxford, unless the faculty/department has an unambiguous name, such as the Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art, it follows "Faculty of X, University of Oxford". Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless those have/should have articles, then the qualifier should be removed from those to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Referring back to "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article": without the qualifier they are not unambiguous. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

As is the case with many titles that more than 1 exists in the real world but WP only has 1 article. "Faculty of Oriental Studies" is the name of the subject, that title unambiguously defines the topic if it is the only 1 WP has an article on. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

One of the examples given as WP:PRECISION is Bothell which is actually named Bothell, Washington (even though there is no other Bothell) because of "seeking a more natural and recognizable title" and its "also consistent with most other articles on American cities". That follows through to the "Consistency" point of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". Therefore, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford is not too precise and follows the consistency of other articles (even though wiki only has one such article). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't have any guideline that like USPLACE or for UK constituencies, specifies that we must qualify them. Just like films and albums (which are usually ambiguous) aren't disambiguated unless needed. Check out Category:2017 albums, most are disambiguated but those that don't require it aren't. The same applies here, even if similar pages are disambiguated, this one doesn't need it, see User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation. Do titles like American Fall, Carry Fire or Big Balloon make it recognizable what they are? I think not. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No there isn't a dedicated guideline but is still follows the general guidance of "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". Eg, Faculty of Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics, University of Oxford, Faculty of Medieval and Modern Languages, University of Oxford, Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, University of Cambridge, Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, etc. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That rule is to base titles and to those that require disambiguation should be disambiguated the same way where reasonably possible. Notice that Faculty of Classics is a redirect to a general article and that Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art isn't disambiguated. The same logic applies to albums, Category:Tim Buckley albums includes some that require disambiguation and some that don't (User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation#What about consistency?). If you think that the other 2 are notable then create a DAB at Faculty of Oriental Studies but otherwise disambiguation of this (and any others that don't require it) is contrary to the disambiguation guideline. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support I agree that this is more WP:NAMECHANGES than common name. Makes sense to update it to the official name if it's recently been changed. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Qualified statement because I don't know what's standard in this area. My only firm position is that ", Oxford" is a bad idea (unless it's an established convention), because it looks like it's referring to the city: some place in Oxford (which one?) known as the Oriental Institute. There's no indication that it's part of the university, especially since I'm pretty sure that the university's primary components are colleges, not institutes. [Remember that titles themselves convey information: as well as distinguishing this from Oriental institutes at other universities if they exist, by disambiguating with "University of Oxford", you tell me firmly that it is a university component and inform me that the university's more than a group of colleges.] So please put "University of Oxford" in the title or get rid of "Oxford" entirely, and beyond that I don't really care. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  Yes "University of Oxford" is the consistent form of disambiguation, which should only be done if needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Since it looks like "Faculty of Oriental Studies" is the current name (per its website) but move to Faculty of Oriental Studies unless DAB is required. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Oppose "Oriental Institute, Oxford" is a historical name, but a well-known one. "Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford" is a clear, current name, and there already is a redirect under that name to the article. The proposal would only swap which is the page and which is the redirect. But the proposal to rename to "Faculty of Oriental Studies" with no indication of the connection to Oxford is meaningless. It's like creating an article for a specific company's Public Relations Department under the title "Public Relations Department". It's meaningless ... the PR department of what company?? The faculty of what college? Also, note that "Oriental Institute" (alone, no Oxford) is a disambig page. LibraryGeek (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oriental Institute is ambiguous but Faculty of Oriental Studies maybe isn't on Wikipedia. We don't specify additional qualified information per Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles#Don't add unnecessary disambiguators simply for consistency. Is Blue Afternoon meaningless without the album qualifier? I think not. The same applies here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles#Don't add unnecessary disambiguators simply for consistency refers to "Parenthetical disambiguation should not be used simply to create a consistent "look" with similar articles.", this is not a "Parenthetical disambiguation". Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles#General description and purpose: "Consistency in titles means that titles for the same kind of subject should not differ in form or structure without good reason. [...] the title to be used should be consistent with titles used for similar or related topics in Wikipedia" is more relevant. Also, while there isn't a dedicated "Wikipedia:Naming conventions" page for it, "Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford" follows the convention as in practice for such institutions and therefore satisfies "A topic-specific convention may require the use of less common or less concise names for certain topics in order to maintain consistency within the field", Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This argument is getting ridiculous. "Oriental Institute is ambiguous but Faculty of Oriental Studies maybe isn't on Wikipedia."?? Okay, first of all, let's take a step back. Do you know what a Faculty is?? "A faculty is a division within a university or college comprising one subject area, or a number of related subject areas." That is to say the name "Faculty of ... " is WITHOUT meaning unless the college or university that it is a part of is ALSO named. This is not the title of an album. This is a division of a university. Do you propose to specifically hide which university simply because you personally don't know of any other? You are proposing to ambiguate this page, not disambiguate it. Create a disambig page for Faculty of Oriental Studies if you must, but don't hold up a very simple and straightforward request for petty bureaucratic nonsense. The Faculty page contains numerous examples of pages in the style proposed, i.e., Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford. An alternative style would be University of Oxford Faculty of Oriental Studies, but Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford already exists and has a number of links to it, and University of Oxford Faculty of Oriental Studies does not.

Also, note that this is not the only redirect to this page. There also are:

• Bodleian Oriental Institute Library
• Oriental Institute Library
• Oriental Institute, Oxford University
• The Oriental Institute of the University of Oxford

It can be argued that the page name was incorrect from the beginning, and that Oriental Institute, Oxford University should have been used rather than Oriental Institute, Oxford. That point is moot. It appears the only argument is that the page should be called Faculty of Oriental Studies instead of Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford because there is not another Wikipedia page by that name. Does that mean that no other university has a department of that name? Or is it just more likely that a separate pages have yet to be created, perhaps because most college / university pages simply list faculties in different sections of their one page, and perhaps only splitting it off into a separate page for a rather significant and notable faculty? Let's say this page is changed to Faculty of Oriental Studies, then someone else proposes to rename one of the other Oriental Institute pages to Faculty of Oriental Studies? Then do we have to argue which Faculty of Oriental Studies is THE Faculty of Oriental Studies? Don't be silly. Take a step back, relax, and let's do the one thing that does make sense. LibraryGeek (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oriental Institute is ambiguous as can be seen because there are multiple articles that use that title. Faculty of Oriental Studies maybe isn't because its a red link and there is no other article called than here currently. Bureaucratic nonsense? The principal of no unnecessary disambiguation is to prevent pointless arguments over how much disambiguaion to add. Note in this case that Faculty of Economics Podgorica doesn't include the university. In this case yes the title should have been disambiguated with "Oxford University" not "Oxford". I'm not sure how the title is meaningless without the name of the university. Someone who knows this faculty will know what the page if referring to. If no Wikipedia page currently exists yet then but one currently should exist then its fine to have a DAB at Faculty of Oriental Studies listing the others (even if they are red links). If you're proposing to disambiguate it because of topics that may exist in the future then that's preemptive disambiguation (WP:CRYSTAL). If others later become notable then we move the page to Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford and create a DAB at Faculty of Oriental Studies. For Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles#Don't add unnecessary disambiguators simply for consistency the same principals apply to comma as bracket disambiguation (since geographical locations are generally disambiguated with commas, not brackets) like for example the articles in Category:Schools in Oxford only disambiguate when needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now we have achieved absurdity. One person here does not get my point because he's looking at titles from a strictly Wikipedia view, willfully ignoring a larger reality. If the correct solution is not possible because of an obscure rule intended to "prevent pointless arguments" ... then we're creating pointless arguments over that rule. WP:IGNORE WP:5P5 Since it seems this one person will prevent us from achieving consensus at all possible costs, I now suggest we OPPOSE this request, since a correct redirect already exists, and any attempt to proceed with this request will make the situation worse, not better. We can change all our links to Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford, if we want to, and they will all work. They get us to the right place. I may support a request to change the title to Oriental Institute, Oxford University, but I'm afraid that it may only trigger another absurd argument. This kind of nonsense is exactly why I've done most of my edits here as an IP. LibraryGeek (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

WP only clarifies titles as much as is required on WP. WP only adds qualifiers for technical reasons in that for example the planet, goddess and element can't share the title Mercury. My arguments are well within the letter and spirit of out titling/disambiguation guidelines. I am not trying to prevent consensus at all costs but ensure that we follow our guidelines here. As far as I can see we would still be best moving this to Faculty of Oriental Studies at least per WP:NATURAL. Imagine how many title debates we would have if we allowed unnecessary disambiguation. I'm unsure why you think Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford is better than Faculty of Oriental Studies. Other than distinguishing it from a topics that WP doesn't cover, it is more complicated and less concise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you don't understand, and you refuse to understand. I will not support a change that makes a page MORE ambiguous. You are only thinking about titles in the Wikipedia world, not the REAL world. Wikipedia should model the world, yet you propose to make the world model Wikipedia. WP:FATRAT I think it's clear that we will not agree, and your rule that is supposed to "prevent pointless arguments" has created one. It's time to close this discussion as consensus NOT achieved and move on. LibraryGeek (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

LibraryGeek, consensus doesn't have to mean that everyone agrees. While we don't count votes, one dissenting voice doesn't outweigh all others. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't count votes so the closer should take into account our policies and guidelines, not just the consensus of the participants, see WP:RMCI#Determining consensus. Of which adding disambiguation for any reason other than technical reasons is usually not done according to our policies and guidelines. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.