User:Born2cycle/FAQ

Why

Why this FAQ?

A: My main interest at Wikipedia is article naming in general, and in particular, making all article titles as consistent with the general naming criteria laid out at WP:TITLE and the five pillars at WP:FIVE, as is reasonably possible. I believe there is a lot of unnecessary debate that could be easily avoided with better compliance with these rules.

Because of my interest in article title naming consistency and predictability, I am involved in many naming discussions, and several editors have kindly suggested that the amount of editing I do on talk pages is too much, and is disruptive. I don't really see how talk page discourse can be all that disruptive since it's trivial to ignore and has no direct bearing on article content, but since I do recognize that I often find myself in similar discussions and so often repeat answers and explanations I've previously provided, I thought I would develop this FAQ to which I could just reference when appropriate. Hopefully this will save me time as well as reduce any problems my efforts cause.

My intent is to build it up over time to make it more and more useful.

NC

Why are you against following the specific naming convention?

I'm all for following a specific naming convention (e.g., Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television), Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_States, WP:NCROY, etc.) for good reason. The only good reason I know to follow a particular pattern for naming is be consistent in how we disambiguate titles of certain kinds of articles, when disambiguation is required, and there is no good reason to disambiguate some other way in particular.

But following a naming convention -- and for no other reason -- is, by definition, not a good reason to choose a name. In contrast, concision has intrinsic value, as explained at WP:TITLE, as does choosing names that are only as precise as necessary. When the undisambiguated base name of a topic is the normal, common and natural name for the topic, why not use that for its title? Providing additional descriptive information in a title is not something normally done in WP article titles, unless it is necessary for disambiguation, which in those cases where the name is unique or the topic is primary is clearly not the situation.

Blindly following naming conventions is tempting, because it seems easier (you just name the article according to the convention, and you're done!), but actually it creates problems.

What problems are caused by naming conventions that apply even when disambiguation is not required?

The general problem with blindly following pre-emptive disambiguation naming conventions (by following a certain pattern in titles even for articles whose undisambiguated names are unambiguous) is that it invites editors to believe or assume that putting an article at a unique predisambiguated title alleviates them from their responsibility to consider treatment of the base name of that topic as it applies to that topic.

As a result, it is very common for the base name of topics with predisambiguated titles to be neglected with respect to how that name is treated relative to that topic. The specific problems are manifested as:

1. missing redirects (the predisambiguated topic's base name is a red link). See User:Theo's Little Bot/unnecessary dab.
2. missing links (the predisambiguated topic is not listed on the dab page for the predisambiguated topic's base name, nor in a hat note of the primary topic article when there is no dab page), and
3. the predisambiguated topic is not considered a "significant competing use" in primary topic determinations for that base name (e.g., Plymouth).

In short, specific naming conventions are very useful for providing guidance when the general naming conventions indicate a name that requires disambiguation. But if the general naming conventions indicate a name that is unique in Wikipedia, or for which the topic in question is primary, it should just be used and there is no use for the specific naming convention.

Change guideline first

Shouldn't you get the policy/guideline changed, rather than try to subvert it one article at a time?

Not necessarily. Change normally occurs bottom-up in WP, since the guidelines and policies tend to reflect behavior more than they dictate behavior.

There are several reasons for this, but probably the most important is that we rarely have a true quorum deciding anything. Even on policy talk pages most decisions involve a handful or two of the thousands of editors working on Wikipedia. No one discussion can really establish true broad consensus. So it makes sense to change things one article, or a few articles, at a time. Then, if a trend is established, one can propose a change to the corresponding policy, guideline, MOS or whatever to reflect the new trend which establishes true broad consensus.

Another important related reason for allowing change at the article level contrary to guidelines (for good reason per WP:IAR) is that requiring policy/guideline/MOS change prior to change at the article level creates a Catch-22 situation: you can't change at the article level because doing so is contrary to the guidelines; but you can't change the guidelines because the guidelines accurately reflect what is going on at the article level.

So a proposal being out of line with policy/guideline/MOS is not in and of itself a good reason to object to that proposal, especially when someone proposing the change has given good reason to invoke WP:IAR. This is not subverting the rules, or being dishonest or irresponsible. It's the standard way to change things in WP. And, yes, it means inconsistencies during the transition stages, which can last months or even years.

That said, you do need to persuade a consensus of those participating at each step. Any controversial change - and going against policy/guideline/MOS is almost always by definition controversial - requires a discussion and establishment of consensus of those participating. It's just that in a discussion about a proposal properly based on IAR, any oppose argument solely based on the change being against the guidelines should not be given much, if any, weight.

Now, if changes contrary to guidelines or MOS are being made unilaterally, then that's a problem, though even then at least at first one can probably defend his actions per WP:BOLD. But once some objection is established, yeah, discussion and consensus are required... on the individual change, not necessarily on the broader rule change issue. Consensus for a rule change typically does not happen until consensus is established for some number of individual changes, establishing a trend that shows broad consensus for the rule to reflect the new changes.

So we need to persuade "a consensus of those participating at each step"? I don't think that's going to work with such a massive base of applicable articles.[1]

Yes, but we only need to take a few steps, maybe 2 or 3 articles, before we can discuss changing the guideline to reflect this change. Without that, we simply have no basis to change the guideline.

Well, I prefer consistent adherence to a flawed standard than inconsistency, especially on a big topic like naming conventions.

First, we already have inconsistency - the way U.S. city names are unnecessarily disambiguated is inconsistent with how cities in other countries are named.

But even within the scope of just U.S. city names, if there is ever going to be a change, there will have to be a period of unknown length of inconsistency. Even the renaming of articles on the AP list took years to implement, starting in 2008 with the IAR moves of articles like Chicago, Boston and Seattle, then the guideline change, then most of the others, but not really ending until Las Vegas and St. Louis were finally moved in 2012. So we had four years of inconsistency with respect to how articles about cities on the AP list were titled. No one has identified any harm suffered by WP or its users as a result of that inconsistency during that time.

Conformist

Please explain how some conformist "guideline" overrides common usage.

Source: User_talk:Born2cycle#A_less_friendly_suggestion [2].

A: I believe you're referring to conforming with the principle criteria at WP:TITLE and referring to U.S. cities as "City, State" as being "common usage". First, WP:TITLE is policy, not a guideline. The rule that calls for using [City, State] for U.S. city article titles even when disambiguation it not required is a guideline, and Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Conflicts_between_advice_pages (which is procedural policy) clearly states that when there is a conflict, "one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict" and, until that happens, "if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence." The notion that U.S. cities are not commonly referred to by name only is patently absurd. For example, here are the results of a search for "Ann Arbor" from books.google.com - not one hit for "Ann Arbor, Michigan" in at least the first seven pages of results (I didn't look further).

Minimalist titles

What's wrong with more descriptive titles? Why is "Paris" a better title than "Paris, France"? You seem to prefer minimalist titles. Why?

Source: [3]

Title minimization, (a.k.a. title concision, title succinctness, or avoiding unnecessary precision in titles) helps us achieve the goal of long-term title stability and reducing conflict about titles. The situation often arises that the choice is between the current title and an alternative. If strong arguments based on WP:AT and WP:D can be made supporting both, meaning that both are acceptable titles, choosing the more concise of the two is a highly effective tie breaker.

One might suggest that choosing the more descriptive title is an equally effective tie breaker, except it isn't. Choosing the more descriptive title is not effective because there is no obvious limit to "more descriptive". Almost any title could be improved in terms of becoming more descriptive.

But if we always favor the most concise of acceptable titles for a given article, then that title is likely to remain the most concise acceptable choice for a long time, if not forever.

One might suggest that consensus can decide in such cases what is the best balance of all the factors, including balancing concision and how descriptive the title is, but such a subjective decision depends entirely on whoever happens to be participating in the evaluation, and can change any time anyone proposes a change. That suggests instability.

If we all agree to favor the more concise title in such cases, there is no sound grounds for anyone to propose a change (unless something changes, like another use of that title becomes commonly used). That leads to stability in titles.

But, conciseness applies when other factors don't strongly favor one title over another. If a proposed alternative is much better than the current title for reasons well grounded in policy, guidelines and conventions, and an equivalent argument cannot be made favoring the current title, then I would support the alternative, even if it's less concise.

Well, that helps editors, but aren’t we more concerned with helping readers?

This point is addressed here:

• User:Born2cycle/Why_minimal_titles

Concision is not brevity, why do you treat it as if it is?

con·cise[4]

/kənˈsīs/

adjective

giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.

"a concise account of the country's history"

Conciseness is not just brevity, so it doesn't necessarily mean the shorter one. Comprehensiveness is also a key component of conciseness. Thus we don't prefer "Clinton" to "Bill Clinton" for the title of Bill Clinton, even though "Clinton" is shorter than "Bill Clinton", because we don't consider "Clinton" to be a comprehensive title, in terms of WP:CRITERIA, for that topic.

However, in the context of Wikipedia title selection, comprehensive cannot mean a comprehensive description of the topic—the introduction and body of the article are for that. This is exemplified by all of our titles, none of which are a comprehensive description of the topic (click on SPECIAL:RANDOM a few times if you're not convinced our titles generally are not comprehensive descriptions of the topic). It means the title must be complete, or whole; not a partial title. So conciseness in the context of Wikipedia title decision-making means to use the shortest complete title. Of course, the title should also meet the other WP:CRITERIA, including natural and recognizable.

The comprehensiveness component of conciseness is not a reason to use a more descriptive title.

Reader benefit

How do readers benefit from avoiding unnecessary disambiguation or more descriptive titles?

A: The main benefit of disambiguating only when necessary (avoiding unnecessary predisambiguation or additional descriptive information, in compliance with WP:PRECISION) is long term naming stability and reduction in conflict, which is a benefit to editors, not readers, and is an issue to which much of my user page is devoted.

But there are benefits to readers too. It can be useful to know whether a given term is ambiguous or not (ambiguous here means not primary and there are other uses of it about which exist WP articles). A group of similar articles whose titles are consistently only as precise as necessary (no unnecessary disambiguation) means one can instantaneously determine whether a given use is uambiguous or not just from the title.

If you go to any article about a person, you know immediately whether that person's name is ambiguous or not, by whether the title is disambiguated or not. For example, we know that Nicholas Campbell, a Canadian actor, is unambiguous because the title of the article about him is at Nicholas Campbell, and we also that the name of another Canadian actor, Douglas Campbell, is ambiguous because the article about him is at Douglas Campbell (actor). But from that title we also know that there is only one actor named Douglas Campbell, otherwise the title be disambiguated even further, perhaps Douglas Campbell (Canadian actor) if he were the only Canadian actor with that name. Only if we consistently disambiguate only when necessary can we reliably convey this information about the ambiguity of names to our readers.

This is also true with most place names, since most are not predisambiguated like most U.S. cites currently are. For example, Laeken, a suburb of Brussels is unambiguous, while Haren, Belgium, another suburb of Brussels, is ambiguous, and this is made absolutely clear by their respective titles. Please also note that if this information was not conveyed by the title, it would not be conveyed at all. If suburbs of Brussels were all predisambiguated whether ambiguous or not like most U.S. cities, then Laeken would be at Laeken, Brussels, and the only way to know if it was ambiguous or not would be to check if Laeken redirected to Laeken, Belgium.

With U.S. cities, one of the few groups of similar articles with predisambiguated titles even when the base name of the topic is available, we don't know whether a given name is unambiguous or not because they are all predisambiguated. For example, is Tallahassee ambiguous or not? We can't tell from the title of the article because being at the disambiguated Tallahassee, Florida does not necessarily mean "Tallahassee" is ambiguous.

It also can be useful to know what term is most commonly used in reliable source to refer to a given topic. If we deviate from that with additional description in the title, especially if it's not parenthesized, then the reader does not receive the benefit of having that information.

SmokeyJoe's questions

What is the advantage to a reader of title minimalism?

What reader is disadvantaged by that city article being titled "Paris, France"? What principle drives you to support "Paris" as the best title? Why should "unnecessary disambiguation" or "mandatory disambiguation" be considered anything better than rhetoric? "necessary to indicate accurately its topical scope" is the definition of precision. The PRIMARYTOPIC carve-out nullifying the definition of "precise" is stupid. Many good things are unnecessary. Why do you feel "necessary" is a necessary word to use to explain this stuff?[5]

A: First, see the two sections just above:

• #Minimalist_titles
• #Reader benefit

No reader is directly advantaged or disadvantaged by that city article being titled "Paris" or "Paris, France" (presuming that if the title is at the latter the former is a primary redirect to the latter). When we have a situation where the choice is between two reasonable acceptable titles like this, and the other will redirect to whichever one we choose to be the title, the effect on the reader of our choice is negligible. Just in case, the italicized hatnote at the top of the page clearly explains:

This article is about the capital of France. For other uses, see Paris (disambiguation).

The principle that drives support of "Paris" over "Paris, France" as the best title are the related principles of WP:COMMONNAME and title stability. "Unnecessary disambiguation" (don't know about "mandatory disambiguation") is not just rhetoric - it, like COMMONNAME, is a proven effective approach to title decision-making that underlies title stability on WP - reducing subjectivity in decisions that make no significant difference to our readers or the quality of the encyclopedia. By reducing the subjectivity, the deciding of what the titles should be takes up less editor resources. As to primary topic, that is a factor in title decision-making only with respect to identifying title candidates for a given article. That is, if the primary topic for a given term is not the subject of the article in question, then that term, undisambiguated, is not a candidate title for that article. In this case the primary topic of "Paris" is the city in France, regardless of what the title of the article is. "Paris" is the better title not because of primary topic, but because of COMMONNAME and unnecessary disambiguation. Primary topic only tells us that "Paris" is sufficiently precise to be the title, not that it necessarily is the best title. If you want to argue that there should be no primary topic for "Paris" because it's ambiguous, then you're saying that "Paris" should not even be a redirect to the article which should be at Paris, France. But if you concede that the primary topic of "Paris" is the French city, then you're up against COMMONNAME, unnecessary disambiguation (i.e., the avoid too much precision part of PRECISION) and WP:CONCISION to support the title being "Paris, France". The primary topic carve-out in PRECISION is not stupid. In short, to characterize what is meant by avoiding too much precision in titles, if a concise term is to redirect to the article in question anyway (per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT - hence the primary topic carve-out in PRECISION), then we have decided that that term is sufficiently precise to be the title of that article. Yes, many good things are unnecessary, but in the case of choosing one among several reasonable good choices, as is frequently the case with WP titles, having definitive principles, polices and guidelines by which these decisions could be made objectively rather than subjectively per the whims of whoever happens to be making the choice, is how we achieve title stability, less jerking around, and good-for-our-readers titles anyway. That's why "necessary" is necessary to explain this; it's a mechanism to separate the chaff from the wheat in our titles. --В²C ☎ 18:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow guideline

Aren't we required to follow the guideline?

A: No, not when the guideline conflicts with policy. For example, since the "the canonical form ... is [[Placename, State]]" guideline conflicts with the "concise titles are preferred" and "only as precise as necessary" policy, as it does in cases where the topic has a concise and unique natural name that needs no additional precision for disambiguation, "editors may assume that the policy takes precedence." See Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Conflicts_between_advice_pages.

Follow pattern

But doesn't WP:TITLE say titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred?

A. Yes, it's generally true that many article titles follow the pattern used by similar articles as established in guidelines, but WP:TITLE also notes that such guidelines "ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria" (including conciseness and only as precise as necessary). The conflict with policy that exists in special cases of articles about topics with clear and unique unambiguous natural names, where the guideline-indicated title is less concise and more precise than necessary, is not in accordance with the principle naming criteria, which creates a good reason to ignore the guideline.

Two entries

Why is two entries better for the readers than one entry?

Q: Why is two entries [for a U.S. city] better for the readers than one entry?

A: Two entries are not better for the readers than one entry, of course, why do you ask?[[6]]. Regardless of whether the article is at [City] or [City, State], the other one will have to be a redirect to the article. So we will always have (at least) two entries.

TE

Aren't you a tendentious editor?

A: No. WP:TE states, "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole." Generally speaking, in particular with expressing my opinion on talk pages, I suppose "partisan or biased" might be a fair characterization, but never with regard to editing of article content.

However, WP:TE goes on to also say: "behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." I know many people, particularly those who disagree with my opinions, genuinely feel that the volume and repetition of my commentary can "frustrate proper discussions". Some have cited as an example of that my contributions to the commentary at an RFC I started: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#RFC:_United_States_cities. Well, there, I started a request for comments, and, when people responded with comments as I requested, I read them and gave them careful consideration, and often responded, particularly if they said something which I didn't understand, or if it said something which seemed problematic in some way. Since I tend to err on the side of being wordy rather than concise but unclear, I have a lot of comments there, and some are rather long, and there is some repetition. But does all that really add up to frustrating proper discussion? I can't see how. Would something be discussed that is not being discussed due to my tendentious editing? The closing admin did note that the volume made it unlikely for many individuals to have read the entire thing, but does that really matter? Nothing prevented anyone from considering the proposal made, and responding to it. Does everyone really have to read everything everyone else wrote? Where is the disruption? Some people have complained that my long posts waste others' time, but you can't blame me when other people choose to spend their time participating in the RFC I started. Obviously, I'm biased, but all this talk about me being in violation of WP:TE seems like a contrived wikilawyering excuse by those who disagree with me to get me to shut up. That said, I am taking measures to reduce the volume of my contributions to these discussions, and this FAQ is part of that.

1/21/12 Update: It has been brought to my attention that one particular characteristic of WP:TE might apply to me in a certain type of context, and that is One who repeats the same argument without convincing people. The context is in a dispute/argument with another person I probably try to convince them longer and more time than is productive, effective or good for WP. My impression though is that even there I don't really repeat the same argument as much as I try to word it differently, address something they just said, etc., but whether it's an actual TE violation it is an area where I have pledged to improve.

Reverting moves

What is your position on reverting inappropriate moves?

Source: [7]

A: First, it's important to distinguish moves which are inappropriate because they are done unilaterally without going through WP:RM even though they are potentially controversial, to moves that went through WP:RM and the decision is being questioned.

1. Potentially controversial moves that occur without going through WP:RM are widely held to be inherently wrong (regardless of whether the move is "right" or "wrong") and need to be reverted quickly and swiftly. Then, if someone really wants to move it, they are encouraged to go through WP:RM as should have been done in the first place. Note that reverting obvious vandalism is not a potentially controversial move, but most other reverts are.
2. Decisions and moves that are made normally via the WP:RM process, but are questioned, including maybe because it was contentious and closed by a non-admin, are not inherently wrong and so should not be swiftly reverted but should be brought to the attention of admins, either at WT:RM or here at AN/I, so that an admin can review the closing and decide whether the decision was reasonable or not (and potentially reverse if not). This occurs at least a few times a year.

I'm pretty sure this view reflects the consensus of the community on how these matters should be handled.

Changing policy/guidelines during dispute

Why are you changing policy/guidelines while a dispute is in progress?

A: Inconsistencies and errors in policy/guideline wording often only become obvious when that wording is scrutinized during a dispute. If there is true conflict about what that wording should be, then there should be a separate discussion about that. But if it's obvious what consensus supports with regard to that wording, then the wording should be corrected as soon as possible. Just because a wording problem was uncovered due to a dispute is no reason to not correct it.

Title stability

You say you support title stability, but you support [this/all these] moves? How do you reconcile that?

A: Actual practice sets precedent on Wikipedia, and influences how the rules are written and how related decisions are made. So every title that is inconsistent with the rules can influence other titles to be inconsistent, and the effect can ultimately snowball. That why it's important to "fix" inconsistencies with the rules.

So, ironically, making progress with article stability includes moving articles with titles that are inconsistent with the rules, sometimes even if they have been stable at their titles for a very long time. An alternative is to change the rules so that the titles in question are compliant with the revised rules, but this is often impractical, because changing the rules can affect countless titles, and such change often requires contradicting other rules, which leads to ambiguity in guidance, and less stability.

Title determination is an art

Title determination is an art, why do you think titles can be determined by some kind of algorithm?

Because most titles can and are determined by an algorithm, implicitly if not explicitly. In fact, a very simple implicit algorithm determines the title for probably the majority of our articles. That algorithm is: If the topic has a single obvious most commonly used name which is either unambiguous with other uses on Wikipedia, or is the primary topic for that name, then that name is the title.

Where the simple implicit algorithm does not apply, other more nuanced variants of it do. Algorithmic title determination is preferable to the alternative because it's not contentious. The more titles we can determine by just "plugging in" the basic facts, the less debate there will be about titles, and the more stable our titles will be. While we can probably never get to a place where all titles can be determined by algorithm, striving towards that goal will result in fewer and fewer titles being contentious. This means evolving the rules to be less ambiguous and less contradictory, and bringing titles into better compliance with those rules.

Many people consider driving an automobile to be an art too, but autonomous vehicles are proving that driving too is algorithmic. Surely choosing titles for WP article is a far simpler task than driving a car in traffic. If driving can be done by algorithms, certainly title decision-making can be. --В²C ☎ 19:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Motivations

What is your motivation with regard to WP titles?

A Ultimately, I seek policy-based resolution to conflicts about titles. There are two main prongs to this approach:

1. To remember that "determining consensus" is about inferring how community consensus applies to a given situation more than determining the consensus of those that happen to be discussing the issue. That means doing better at recognizing when one side in a title conflict is clearly supported better by policy (which reflects community consensus) than the other, and advocating for that title accordingly, even if there is no consensus of the small self-selected sample of contributors that happen to be participating in a given discussion. We can do this as participants in RM discussions, and also as closers. Once a title is on policy-based solid ground, it tends to become uncontroversial and stable. Controversy and instability usually indicates the current title is on weak policy-based ground (see the User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle).
2. Improving title policy through an evolving process that gives ambiguous guidance as to what the title should be in fewer and fewer cases.

You will see either or both of these factors at play in almost all of my title-related edits.

Flexibility and JDLI

Why do you link flexibility to JDLI? JDLI says nothing about flexibility. That seems misleading. [8]

A I link flexibilty to WP:JDLI in discussions about the title selection process where the argument is often made that policies and guidelines should allow for "flexibility" in title decisions. My point is that JDLI arguments are easier to make when the rules allow for more choice than for fewer (i.e., more flexibility). If the rules clearly indicate the choice should be A, there is nothing to argue about, JDLI or otherwise. But if the rules indicate the choice could be A or B, without providing much if any clear guidance on which to choose, then the situation is ripe for proponents of A and B to support their favored choice with JDLI arguments. Of course they can make their JDLI arguments appear to be arguments substantiated in policy and guidelines with rationalization, but the bottom line is that if the guidelines allow for "flexibility", then they don't favor either one, by definition. Thus "flexibility" enables JDLI arguing. That's the connection.

RM proposal moratoriums

Why do you oppose moratoriums on RM proposals? Wouldn't a moratorium ensure stability, at least during the time of the moratorium?

The goal is, or should be, to find a title that enjoys consensus support. We don't get there by suppressing proposal consideration and associated discussion. In fact, discussion is how we build consensus on Wikipedia. There are many examples of titles that were controversial for a long time but for which consensus for titles that are now stable finally was reached through proposals and discussion, including: Yogurt, Cork (city), Las Vegas, Ivory Coast, Big Ben, Hollywood, Taiwan, Sega Genesis, New York, New York City, Chicago, Hillary Clinton etc.

The ineffectiveness of moratoriums has been noted by Kraxler[9]:

As to moratoriums: We all remember the Berlin Wall. It was built to hold on to an untenable state of things. It was hotly debated and criticized during the time it existed, and many people crossed it nevertheless. One thing it did not achieve: That things would quiet down and people would accept the status quo. I think people should learn from history... Kraxler (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But aren't such discussions disruptive?

Well, if we do have a consensus decision about a title and a few opponents keep bringing up previously rejected arguments, that's disruptive and should not be tolerated. But if no consensus has been achieved, those who are interested should be allowed and even encouraged to continue to make new proposals and discuss. Those uninterested are not required to participate, or they can quickly register their position with regard to any official RM proposal. And discussions about article content can continue in separate sections. But to oppose proposals or discussion where there is no consensus is a form of status quo stonewalling.