Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

---

vertical list like on WP:MOS

From the history of the article:

"Conventions by topic area: in a vertical list like on WP:MOS - only detail conventions not described elsewhere) (undo)"

There is a major difference between this policy and the MOS. The MOS is a guideline and not a policy, as such WP:MOS and the subsidiary pages have no difference status. This page does have a different status from the guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Which has what to do with anything? Why are you again reverting other people's work without reason or explanation? Do you really not realize why this is destructive behaviour?--Kotniski (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is only destructive if there is consensus for the change. As AFAICT there is nothing on this talk page about these changes how do you know that there is consensus for the changes you have made? I personally think it is a retrograde step to move the guidelines into a template, as it creates yet another page that needs to be watched. Further, as I have previously explained I think that the conventions should be on this page, and that each guideline should have a brief explanation of what it does so that if there is a clash between policy and guideline it is clear what the policy is. --PBS (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That just won't work. Don't you see it's only you who thinks like that? It's nonsensical - all these years you've been owning watching this page you've made no attempt to add brief explanations to the guidelines that haven't had any. And think how long this page would be if you did - for no purpose (like, if people are interested, they'll go and see the guideline). This policy vs. guideline stuff is becoming a pain - keep the policy tag here if you must, but let's not let that fact hamper us in our efforts to present this mass of information in the most accessible way.--Kotniski (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that we discuss if there should be a separate template, for this page, I have given you some reasons why I think it is a bad idea and instead of replying to my points you accuse me of ownership (despite the fact that it has recently been pointed out to you recently that you have made many more edits any other editor to this page). I put it to you that perhaps it would have been a good idea to see if there was a consensus for a separate template on this talk page before creating it and implementing it. --PBS (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've subst'ed it now, so you don't have to watch it separately. Is that your only point? Was it really necessary to revert all the other changes I'd made just over that?--Kotniski (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Is that your only point?" No: "as I have previously explained I think that the conventions should be on this page, and that each guideline should have a brief explanation of what it does so that if there is a clash between policy and guideline it is clear what the policy is." which explains the other reason for the reversal. -- PBS (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

But your revert (thankfully) didn't go back to a situation where we had brief explanations of (some of) the guidelines. I have no idea what your point is about clashes between policies and guidelines in this context - can you give some kind of explanation or a practical example? --Kotniski (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:59, 27 September 2009

There is no consensus for the current wording of the flora guideline, so I think it better if this edit is reversed as it fudges what is a very specific fault line between editors to this page, and it is generally agreed that the MOS does not affect the naming policy directly this guideline "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)" should not be linked into the general guidance of this policy page as if it is part of policy. --PBS (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I took the reference to those two specific pages out (but you really make far too much of this delineation of power between pages - it's largely in your and a few other people's minds).--Kotniski (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"I and B2C do not agree" =/= "there is no consensus". These two guidelines were obviously given because they (and the flora guideline in particular) were amongst the most likely to be encountered by a newcomer. Circeus (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No consensus? Yet evidently there is. For example, the current conventions around naming flora and medicine is evidently as described e.g. Ranunculus not Buttercup, Myocardial infarction not Heart attack.

What I cannot understand is this edit. In what way is the current consensus "often controversial"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely because certain editors cannot understand it that it needs to be said. All the guidelines which mandate consistent standards above usage (WP:NCGN#United States, WP:NCNT, and so on) are controversial; there is recurrent protest that the convention is unnecessary and artificial - often by new and independent protesters. In most of these cases (including FLORA, btw), there is a majority which wishes to keep the consistent standard, but we should acknowledge that it is an iffy procedure, not to be adopted without clear benefit to the reader.

My own position on this has been widely misunderstood, so it may be worth clarifying. I support consistency; I believe that slightly less insistence on it in marginal cases would make for a more useful and harmonious Wikipedia. The benefits of using Liriodendron instead of Tulip tree, or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom instead of Elizabeth II , are real, but minor and offset by confusion and complexity; reasonable editors disagree on the balance of principles without destroying the guidelines. (My positions on these - and they differ - may be found on the talk pages.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no significant support for the assertion that consistency should be subsidiary to common names. Please point me to a place where this has been discussed, other than the WP:FLORA discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Who said subsidiary? I certainly didn't.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If we always used common names (plus general disambiguation principles), that would be beautifully and universally consistent. --Kotniski (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't: Middletown Township, New Jersey, Matawan, Aberdeen, New Jersey is inconsistent, and the reason for the inconsistency is not likely to be obvious to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They could have a pretty good guess though... Anyway, if those actually are the common names, then readers will have learnt something in the process, about the real world, not about Wikipedia.--Kotniski (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It all breaks down only if you define "consistent" to mean, as you just did, "if one or more article titles in a given group need to be disambiguated -- be more descriptive than just the name of the topic -- then all article titles in that group need to be similarly disambiguated." To use that definition of consistency to use "consistency" to justify being inconsistent (with using the most common name) is just silly. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If one is subsidiary to the other, that implies a conflict between principles. There is no need for a conflict, or for one principle to be subsidiary to the other. If every article title consistently reflected the most common name used to refer to the topic, and was only disambiguated when necessary, that would be simultaneously consistent and using common names. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

trouble loading this page?

Is anyone else having trouble loading this talk page in their browser? I am adding this comment by clicking on the add comment link on the main page. When I try to get to this talk page, it only loads part of the page, and the links to the lower sections don't work, and I can't scroll down there either. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No trouble here. Hesperian 00:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Perhaps he's editing a different page which has a more common name....</sarcasm> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What is "consistency"?

I think it's fair to say all of the following are true statements:

• Most Wikipedia titles simply reflect the most common name of the topic.
• Some Wikipedia articles, almost certainly less than 10%, require additional descriptive information in their titles to disambiguate from other uses.
• There are countless examples of groups of similar articles in which titles simply reflect the name of the topic, unless more precision is necessary for disambiguation.

Now I simply see no problem with this approach whether it's 1%, 10%, 70%, or 90% of a given group that needs that extra precision. To disambiguate those in the group that don't need to be disambiguated just to be named "consistently" with the other articles in that group solves nothing and creates the following problems.

1. The titles of the articles in that group cannot be relied upon (by readers or editors) to indicate whether a given name has primary use of its name or not.
2. The articles that are unnecessarily disambiguated are named inconsistently with the vast majority of WP articles.
3. When editors create articles at predisambiguated names they tend to overlook giving proper consideration for the undisambiguated name (adding a link to a dab page or creating a redirect).
4. In considerations about primary use of any of the names used in the group, the uses by the relevant article in this group is likely to be overlooked (after all, it "belongs" at Name (Extra), not at Name, so it's not a conflict -- or so the argument goes, if it's articulated at all).
5. Similarly, the use of a given name by any article in this group is likely to be overlooked in the process of creating a dab page for that name, or a hat link on the article with primary use of that name.
6. It creates an artificial conflict between the principles of common name and "consistency", thus creating a bottomless pit of conflict about what articles should be named.

Only disambiguating titles when necessary is not a problem, and it certainly doesn't need to be "solved" by creating all of the above problems by disambiguating all articles within a given group whether they need to be disambiguated or not. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What is current practice? If what was described was not current practice then it should not be on this page. If what you want on the page is something other than current practice then you need input from a wider forum.

I would comment, however, that what I would consider "consistency" is things like that "list" articles all begin with "List of ..." e.g. List of countries by population, not Countries by population for example. Or, for example, that when choosing a dabbing phrase that we use a consistent phrase across articles e.g. in the case of music groups it is "band" such as Anthrax (band), not Anthrax (music group) or Antrax (heavy metal). Or that articles relating to the history of countries all begin with "History of ..." e.g. History of Germany not German history. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Current practice is that certain relatively small and well-defined groups of articles (like all the towns in the United States - with a handful of exceptions for major cities) are put in a standard format. This is usually done when most of them are ambiguous, and must be disambiguated anyway.

Born2Cycle disagrees, and has done so so long that he has worn out a username in the process.

Some of us, however, see an anomaly, when most of the towns in the United States must be disambiguated (we choose to use the common form Springfield, Illinois) in having most of the towns in Illinois with the name of the state, and some at their unadorned name. It will not be obvious to the reader, as it was not to me, that Evanston, Illinois and Peoria, Illinois require disambiguation; so it will not be obvious to the reader why East St. Louis is being treated differently - and if we do adopt this, I expect immediate complaints that that town is being herded into Missouri, like Saint Louis, Missouri on the other side of the river.

Does anybody agree with B2C? Have we, in parliamentary terms, a second? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with what, Pmanderson? That the wording should reflect actual practice? Who disagrees with me on that? That predisambiguation creates the problem I listed above? Who disagrees with that?

Now, I agree that there are some isolated groups -- most notably U.S. city names that are not on the AP list, and some ship names -- in which all article titles in the group are predisambiguated. However, this current aberrational practice in a few isolated groups is a far cry from establishing basis for saying that all articles should be so named, which is the wording in question.

There is also a convention to use consistent titles in groups of articles about topics that don't have clear and obvious names, but descriptions, like the "List of ..." articles.

Can we at least agree that what we need to do is find wording that expresses actual practice, which is all I, for one, am trying to do? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with B2C's aspirations; but I can't agree that it represents current practice (the US places and the ships and the queens are sufficient counterexamples). So yes, we should do it that way, but we don't, so we shouldn't be trying to word this policy in a way that implies that we do - that won't change anything except to mislead people who read this page.--Kotniski (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What wording have I suggested that implies a practice is in place that is not?

To the contrary, that's exactly what the current wording suggests. While the consistency principle has some application, relatively speaking it is very limited, which is not at all true of all the other truly general principles we have listed. See section below for more on this. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Template or explicit table?

I would have thought this was obvious, but there was an objection, so can we have some outside opinion: can we not transclude a template ({{naming conventions}}) to produce the box listing all the specific-topic naming guidelines, instead of having it on the page as an explicit table? The downside mentioned is that you'd have to watch the template separately if you wanted to see what changes were going on, but I would have thought that was easily outweighed (as it is with the many other templates of this type) by the reduced complexity of the wikitext and the ability to maintain the same listing on many different pages without having to update all of them separately when something is added to/removed from the list. --Kotniski (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'm adding the template to my watch list. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page for 3 days for edit warring. This is not an endorsement of the current version of the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit is wishful thinking.

Groups of similar articles that do not have obvious names and so require manufactured titles (e.g., "List of ...", "Geography of ...") generally should have similar titles. This may be true of a series of articles sharing a common topic or articles describing different topics but from a common field.

does not describe what we actually do. Consistency is not in fact confined to articles with no obvious names; East St. Louis, Illinois does have an obvious name, nor did we manufacture the name it has now (the Post Office may have).

If there were consensus we should change a substantial portion of the ten thousand American municipal articles, we would be doing it - and someone here would expressly agree with Born2Cycle.

Please stop, so this page can be unprotected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The wording you quoted above says nothing nor implies anything about municipality naming - not sure why you brought that up.

No implication of strict confinement was stated or implied in the wording that you characterize as "does not describe what we actually do" on the basis that such confinement is implied. That is, the wording does not preclude application of consistency in some contexts other than the one listed.

That said, the actual application of consistency principle in practice is very confined (though not just to the category of articles listed), which is not at all true of any of the other principles. That it has general application like all of the other principles is implied by the current wording, and that is what does not describe what we actually do.

Don't blame me for the challenge that exists in describing actual practice in words. At least my edit is an improvement by not saying or implying anything that is not true about current practice. "Similar articles should have similar titles" is not at all true about current practice, except in a small percentage of articles.--Born2cycle (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Consider the first random category I came across in my search, Category:Canals in Lincolnshire. There is a clear pattern, with one anomaly - and it appears to be local usage; the OED records Navigation = "Canal" as current. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would have thought the vast majority of article titles were common and self-identifying and accurate and unique and whatever else people like to claim is a key principle. The fact that some principle is applied over others in only a small percentage of cases doesn't make it a less important principle; the same is true of all the principles.--Kotniski (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about principle conflicts. When all of the other naming principles listed apply to over 90% of article titles (at least one, uniqueness, to 100%) and one applies to less than 5%, that's a difference in kind of principle. Listing them all together is misleading, implying that the one with relatively narrow scope has a much broader scope. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, looking at the titles in one category of articles, whether that one category is randomly selected or not, hardly tells us anything about how articles are named in general, or how often each of the principles in question applies to articles in general in Wikipedia. I have no doubt that the canals in Lincolnshire are among the relatively small percentage (less than 5%) of WP articles that are named similarly to similar articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it tells us about a typical, randomly selected, category; most categories are like that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the same issue that has been dealt with above - the fact that people articles are consistently titled First name + Last name (even without the masses of other evidence) is surely sufficient to show that a desire for consistency plays a significant role in naming, and should be up there prominently if we're trying to explain to people how article name selection works around here. --Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No it has not been dealt with. I have raised several issues and not one of them has been addressed. As to the "First name + Last name" issue, if you think it is a problem, then the obvious place to put it is on this page as part of the policy. There is no need why we should not put consistency into a section as we do for "Use English words", because then we can explain what it means, but it should not be a general bullet point at the start of the section, because as a general rule it clashes directly with reliable sources (see the example I have given), in a way that the other bullet points do not. -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Which example (there have been rather a lot on this page)? If it clashes with reliable sources, then all the more reason to make it a bullet point, since people will be misled if we leave it out. (It's the ones that don't clash, like "Easy to find", that aren't necessary IMO.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

British Armed Forces rather than "Military of the United Kingdom", The Holocaust rather than "Jewish Genocide", "Occupation of ... by Nazi Germany", "Sweet Chestnut" so "Horse Chestnut". -- PBS (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

These are examples where some potential consistency is not followed, right? But many examples have also been given where consistency is followed despite not meeting the other criteria. So surely there is no reasonable disagreement that consistency is among others a major factor influencing name choices? --Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Define "major factor". The reasonable definition I have is that it applies in a vast majority if not all articles. Consistency is the only listed principle that does not meet that criteria, unless you consider that every article about a person named First Last is an example of "similar articles should use similar names" rather than an unintended consequence of simply following common name practice in reliable sources. All of the other principles are essentially mutually supportive; "similar articles should use similar names", without clarification about the specific contexts in which it applies in practice (see my comment below), is the only one that is inherently in conflict with the others. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course consistency is a factor... it's not necessarily the most important factor, and definitely not an all-pervasive factor, but it is a factor. I would be willing to bet that we could find exceptions to every one of our naming conventions. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I see it too. I don't know why we're arguing really - we can only be arguingabout how to craft the wording of the policy to give just the right amount of apparent weight to each criterion, but frankly, that won't have a great deal of effect - people will go ahead and name their articles according to their own priorities. ("Don't capitalize every word" is probably the most important categorical policy statement that will ever appear on this page.) --Kotniski (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No one, certainly not me, is arguing that consistency is not a factor. I'm arguing that the other listed principles are factors in virtually all, if not all, articles, while consistency, at least when defined as similar articles should use similar names, is a factor only in a relatively small percentage of articles, because it only applies in certain contexts (most notably in articles that use descriptions rather than names -- like "List of ..." -- in groups of similar articles for each of which there is no single obvious name, like royalty and ship names -- and when additional precision is needed for disambiguation beyond just a name). In other words, consistency comes into play only when the other general principles do not produce a single obvious solution for some reason or another, thus consistency should almost never conflict with the primary principles.

However, if one sees every article about a person named First Last as an example of "similar articles should use similar names" rather than an unintended consequence of simply following common name practice in reliable sources, an appreciation for the distinction I'm noting will not be realized.

My main concern here is that the very policy and guidelines that are supposed to clarify how to name articles in order to help editors avoid conflict (if that's not their purpose, what is?) are being stated in a way that virtually guarantees the opposite. It's really too bad because actual article naming practice follows principles that are much less ambiguous and conflicting than what we are stating here, especially with the blatantly conflicting "similar articles should use similar names" having equal status with the other mutually supportive principles. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

actual article naming practice follows principles that are much less ambiguous and conflicting. No, it doesn't. Go to WP:RM and observe; these are the common arguments - all of them - and it is not the case that the others usually all align, and consistency is ranged against them - and when it is, as with the perennial discussion of Her Present Majesty, it often prevails. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at WP:RM to determine actual naming practice at WP is like looking at the behavior of convicted criminals to determine typical human behavior in a given society. You get a very skewed impression. The vast majority of articles are named quietly in accordance with the actual principles in practice, without conflict, and without going to WP:RM.

That said, most WP:RM debate seems to be about whether certain criteria have been met (especially for primary topic), not about balancing conflicting principles, unless one of those principles being "balanced" is consistency. Giving similar article/name consistency prominent "equal weight" at WP:NC is almost certainly going to increase traffic at WP:RM. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A half-truth. Most article naming decisions have nothing to do with WP:RM; those decisions have nothing to do with this page either. All this page is, all it can be, is a collection of the arguments which have worked in naming decisions before, and can reasonably be expected to work now. Consistency is among them; despite Born2cycle's dislike for it, it is widely accepted in practice, and most people agree that it is desirable.

Similarly, most of the subset on this page agree that it is desirable. Unless someone other than Born2cycle takes up this argument, I am going to ignore it; it has no chance of going anywhere with only a single proponent. And if he continues alone, I will make "a pun the Mock Turtle never made" and rename him for the ennui produced by endless repetition.

We have read, we understand, we disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying that most naming decisions (which don't go thru WP:RM) have nothing to do with this page is like saying the decisions of people choosing to obey speed limit laws have nothing to do with speed limit laws.

And if you think that I don't agree that consistency is among the factors considered in naming articles, which is basically what your words imply, then you don't understand. Until you can show that you at least understand my position, we have nothing to even agree to disagree about.

My argument is not that consistency is not among the factors considered, but that it does not, in practice, have the same weight; that it usually only applies in contexts where the other listed principles provide no guidance. It's the "clean up" principle, if you will. Very important, but also very different.

By the way, it's not just me. PBS has expressed a very similar concern as I have. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Then shut up and let him express it. He may be able to express a position clearly and consistently, without reeling from pillar to post; I can only reply to what Born@Cycle says, not what he means.

And what he says is false. Consistency is often considered, and often prevails; Born2Cycle does not like that it has as much weight as it does (and sometimes neither do I). But both Yucca brevifolia and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom are actual naming decisions, even if b2C and I dislike the first; the second was taken independently of RM, which has nevertheless failed to reverse it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

When you say what some someone says is false, it's helpful to know what specifically you're referring to. In this case you continue with "consistency is often considered", implying what I'm saying is false is "consistency is not often considered". I've never said that. For the record, yes, consistency is "often" considered in article naming decisions.

You also say consistency "often prevails". I don't dispute that either. That's why I said consistency "usually", not "always", "only applies in contexts where the other listed principles provide no guidance". "Often" among millions can mean hundreds or even thousands of instances, and yet that is still only a fraction of the cases compared to the near universal applications of the other principles in question, and compared to the instances in which consistency "prevails" because the other principles provide no guidance. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As we keep saying, consistency is applied over large percentages of articles, it's just that we don't notice because in most cases it doesn't clash with the other principles. We could just as easily say that consistency is applied almost universally, and in the few cases where it doesn't give an answer, we apply some other principle like common name. In fact I think consistency takes the upper hand far more than you admit - a fairly random example is the articles in Category:Land counties of Poland, where they all take the form "Foo County", as opposed to "Foo P/powiat" or "Powiat Fooski" or "Powiat fooski" or "Fooski" or "Fooski District" or "Foo District" or whatever. If you looked at the isolated English sources that mention each of the counties, you certainly wouldn't get the same answer in each case. But, though different people may have different views about which of these styles is most appropriate, no-one (I hope) is seriously suggesting that we should adopt a mixture of these styles. The advantage of consistency is simply obvious to everyone in cases like this. And this situation is very common - the norm I would say. Even in those categories where we don't have consistency, I believe it's usually by accident than design - if someone was to make the effort to make the titles consistent, no-one would object, except in the minority of cases where there's some good reason for the inconsistency.--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow reliable sources

PBS has repeatedly argued that the principle of consistency clashes with the principle of reliable sources. That is right; it does. The trouble is, so do all the others—consistent with other titles, but not if reliable sources use a name that is inconsistent with the names of related topics; concise, but not if all reliable sources use the same long-winded name; recognisable, but not if reliable sources universally prefer a little-known term like "feces" over the better-known term "shit".

It seems to me that "follow reliable sources" over-arches all of these principles. I propose that it be treated as such in the convention. Doing so would demote the other principles to dimensions along which we might need/want to tweak the name. e.g. the royalty dudes might say "we're not going to follow reliable sources because the names used in reliable sources aren't precise enough; the geographic predisambiguators might say "we're going to stick ", Ohio" on the end of every name, even though reliable sources don't do so, because we want more consistency; etc.

I like the way this couples our naming practices fairly tightly to one of our pillars. I like the fact that this would correctly identify some of these guidelines as unusual, and as lacking broad consensus outside the narow fields in which they operate; but without seeking to ban them. I think it would strike the right balance between giving guidance and reflecting actual practice.

The main objection to following reliable sources, as I understand it, is that reliable sources may not have the same audience or goals as we do. This could perhaps be addressed by giving advice on assessing reliable sources; e.g. B2c would get the chance to argue that names used by the New York Times, which has a wide readership and low expectations with respect to background knowledge, should be favoured over names used by narrowly focussed journals read only by specialists in a field.

Hesperian 05:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems to make good sense. However we must note that some of the current guidelines (the monarchs and the ships spring to mind) are not just tweaks to the reliable source principle - they turn it on its head, insisting on certain names regardless of whether they are ever used in reliable sources. I've no idea how this sort of thing came to be accepted, but it clearly is accepted, so whatever wording we adopt has to reflect that.--Kotniski (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In two steps. The forms we use as disambiguation are often rare in reliable sources; I doubt the string "William Williamson (canoer)" is particularly common outside Wikipedia. In fact, both conventions have done rather well at picking unambiguous forms which are in fact fairly common; Springfield, Illinois is the normal way to specify which Springfield is under discussion when necessary.

Having established a standard disambiguated form - whether or not it was used in reliable sources - they extended this to all forms of the class because there seemed no reason for reader or editor to have to go through the rather tedious checking whether a form was genuinely unambiguous or primary usage (often a judgment call, on which reasonable people will disagree) to know where the article was.

And in fact the forms we use are used by reliable sources; consider Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski Hesperian's suggestion, however, is well worth considering; fortunately there is a draft, so the process of fine-tuning this to make it harder to misread can take place there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Hesperian's suggestion is that while there are certain isolated examples in which one or other of the principles besides consistency clashes with usage in reliable sources, that's far from the norm. That is, usage within reliable sources almost always complies with recognizability and being concise, etc. Of course there are exceptions like feces/shit. But those rare exceptions are beside the point, or, rather, that they are so rare is the point.

However, with consistency, clash is the norm. That's the problem with giving it equal status to the other principles (whether they're all subservient to reliable source or not). --Born2cycle (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we're in agreeance, B2c! What you've written above paraphrases as "The consistency principle is problematic and usually shouldn't be followed. The problem with Hesperian's proposal is that it suggests that the consistency principle is problematic and usually shouldn't be followed." We agree on the broad thrust of this, which is that we should follow real-world usage. And we agree that "consistency" often conflicts with that usage, and therefore the liberal application of consistency often leads to crappy titles. As far as I can tell, the bit you disagree with, is the bit that I added solely out of a sense of political expediency: if we change to a convention that results in the royalty dudes et al. being declared at fault, people will get cranky and the change will rightly be rejected as not reflecting current practice. Instead, I proposed to make a change that results in an convincing convention that relates our naming practices to our verifiability pillar in an elegant way, whilst making allowances for the practices of the royalty dudes et al., yet without declaring the practices of the royalty dudes et al. to be consistent with our principles. Let them sit with that convention for a while. Let them see how well it fits with our pillars, and how badly it fits with their own practices. That is about the limit to which this convention has the ability to change current practice: all we can do here is articulate an ideal in a manner convincing enough that people want to change to conform to it.

P.S. "feces/shit" is not an exception. Reliable sources favour "feces" and so do we.

Hesperian 06:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Folly

This reversion is most unwise; the question is whether it is better to encourage consensus rather than to default to " first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub". Born2cycle reverted on the grounds that, to quote his edit summary, First use is definitive; "but consensus is better" invites conflict.

Neither is true:

• "First major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" is as debatable by partisans as any other part of the article history; when did it actually cease to be a stub? who is a major contributor? The formula for a default may suggest terms for a ceasefire for those who want one; but to call it definitive is nonsense.
• "Consensus is better" is an invitation to form actual consensus, which may actually settle the question permanently - possibly by choosing another title altogether.

I am distressed - but, on the whole, not surprised - that Born2cycle should have come out in opposition to consensus; he has a long history of pet notions which he has resolutely pushed against consensus. This is another; away with it.

I think I see a way the wording encouraging consensus may be improved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Concensus always trumps an individual's wishes, and no individual editor's wishes trumps another editor's wishes. If there is conflict, then editors need to find a way to reach consensus. To help them do this, there are any number of valid naming criterion that can be used (The name used by the majority of sources, self-identification, consistancy with a topic area's project guideline, etc.) This may not always be easy, but discussion and consensus is the only way to resolve naming conflicts. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The wording in question is in italics:

If it has never been stable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the name should be, the default is the name used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub; it would be preferable to reach a genuine and wide consensus by discussion, if possible.

Note the context. The statement only applies when the following conditions are met:

1. the name has "never been stable for a long time"
2. no consensus can be reached

That consensus is preferable in general goes without saying. That reaching consensus even under these conditions is something else. It means that continuing to try to reach consensus even when no consensus can be reached and the article title in question has never been stable for a long time is preferable to falling back on the default. That's not true, and is exactly the opposite of the point of this wording. It's an unnecessary opening for filibuster, and encourages exactly what this clause is trying to stop. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this:

While reaching consensus is preferred, if an article name has not been stable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the name should be, default to the name used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

I think that meets your intent without creating the problem I'm concerned about. Good compromise? Hoping so, I've changed it accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the entire "default" name concept. If an article name is not stable, then renewed effort is needed to reach a consensus and make it stable. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No one disagrees with that. The issue is what to do when consensus cannot be reached, which happens all too often. There has to be a default, and when there has not been a stable version in a long time, the choice is between trying to determine whether there was a stable version before the long time during which there has been no stable version, or going back to the first name used (ignoring stubs). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think there has to be a default. If a name is not stable, you keep discussing the issue until a stable name can be determined... ie until there is a consensus. There are lots of ways to achieve consensus... consensus can be reached through compromise, it can be reached by asking more editors to opine, it can even be imposed from above, as would happen if you took the dispute through dispute resolution and got an arbcom ruling. But the idea that any particular name is a default is as flawed as the idea that there is a "right version" or a "wrong version" when an admin locks page to stop an edit war. Blueboar (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the secton that outline my view on this. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; much simpler and more accurate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of a title?

Currently we have the following statement:

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers.

I agree that enabling finding of the article is a purpose of the title, arguably even the primary purpose; but it's not the only purpose. In particular, for the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia, the title serves the purpose of indicating the name most commonly used in English to refer to the topic of the given article. Whether this was originally an intended purpose of article naming is beside the point, it's how it has turned out to be, and it's useful. The fact is that a Wikipedia title informs the reader of the following:

1. If the article topic has a clear and obvious most common name, the article title indicates what that name is.
2. Whether the topic has primary usage of that name is indicated by whether the name in the title is disambiguated.

The vast majority of Wikipedia titles serve this purpose, and it's useful in and of itself. In order to state in policy that which is true in practice, I propose altering the above wording accordingly:

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers and, when applicable, to identify the name most commonly used to refer to the article's topic in English.

I already made this correction, which I didn't think would be controversial, but it was reverted.

Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"the title serves the purpose of indicating the name most commonly used in English". No. The title may well be the most commonly used name, but it is not a intentional purpose of the title to indicate what is most common, and the idea that a title communicates something about commonness to an uninitiated reader is a myth. I utterly reject the idea that people go to an article, read the title, and say "Ah, now I know which name is most common". (Far more likely that they will say "Ah, so that is the actual correct name.") Hesperian 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indicating the most common name is probably not the original intended purpose of using the most common name for article titles. But that's the inevitable result, never-the-less. Almost every article title in WP that is a topic name (disambiguated or not) indicates the most commonly used name for that topic. Whether a given reader picks up on that explicitly is beside the point.

In terms of the current stated purpose -- "to enable that article to be found" -- what difference does it make if the article about the entertainer is at Cher to which Cher Bono redirects, or vice-versa? None, since typing either one gets you to the same article regardless of which is the title and which is the redirect. The only difference is whether, once you get there, will it indicate that Cher or Cher Bono is the most commonly used name. That's not a myth. That's a fact that's true for practically all articles about topics that have single obvious names, with a small minority of unfortunate exceptions. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Whether a given reader picks up on that explicitly is beside the point". No, it is the point. I accept that most of the time our title will be the most commonly used name. The myth is that it is a purpose of those titles to communicate what the most commonly used name is. Communication is a two-way contract. It is not enough for us to choose the most commonly used name as our title. Our readers must also infer that whatever title we chose must be the most commonly used name, by virtue of the fact that we chose it. There is no evidence that the latter occurs, and it is ludicrous on the face of it. Without that inference, this channel of communication is closed.

You're right about one thing, though. "To enable that article to be found" is not "the purpose" of a title either. The purpose of a title is to provide a unique identifier for a page; nothing more, nothing less. Since there are a gazillion ways to do that, we try to add value by making the title useful and informative. Making it easy to find; making it correct; your putative "using it to indicate the most common name"—these are all added-value, not core purpose. Hesperian 00:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the name of the topic in the title is more useful than a random string would be, and is informative. But how is it informative? What does it inform the reader about if not what is the most common name used to refer to that topic (for those topics that have names - articles with fabricated titles like "List of ..." inform the user of nothing)? If a purpose of the title is to inform the reader about something, then that something is what the name is. There can be no other information attained from the name! Thank you for making my point. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You are conflating what the name is with what the most commonly used name is. I agree with the former, but not the latter. I am getting tired of giving you examples of titles that are names but not most commonly used names.

But even if we did religiously and stringently choose the most common used name to be our title in every single case, that would still merely be our internal naming practice; the title still would not serve the purpose of communicating to the reader what the most commonly used name is, because readers don't assume the title is the most commonly used name. Hesperian 01:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this?

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers and, when applicable, the title often identifies the name most commonly used to refer to the article's topic in English.

This way it's not saying identifying the most commonly used name is a "purpose" of the title, and the undisputed fact that there are examples of articles which have names which are not the most commonly used name is covered by saying "often identifies". Does that address all your concerns? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be an accurate assertion, but one that puts too much emphasis on commonness, thereby inappropriately elevating it above all other considerations. As I said above, what we ought to be doing is conforming our usage with usage in reliable sources. We only use common names to the extent that reliable sources use common names. For that matter, we only use concise/precise/accurate/neutral/recogniseable/formal/standardised/predictable/uncontroversial/consistent/self-identifying/[insert any other adjective you want here] names, to the extent that reliable sources use concise/precise/accurate/neutral/recogniseable/formal/standardised/predictable/uncontroversial/consistent/self-identifying/[insert any other adjective you want here] names. I cannot see any reason to pluck a single adjective out of that list and put it on a pedestal. Usage is king. Hesperian 05:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hesperian here. The only purpose of naming an article is so that it has a unique identity in Wikipedia. There are many criteria that determine what name we give an article. Being the most common name used by reliable sources is certainly up there at the top of the list of criteria, but it isn't the over riding criteria. I can see giving "most common in reliable sources" significant weight in determining what to name an article, but ultimately it is up to the consensus of article editors. If the consenus is to name the article using one of the other criteria, that is fine. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference to using reliable sources in article naming is a little over a year old and so could only have influenced a tiny fraction of all article names in Wikipedia. However, the vast majority of all titles that are names reflect the most commonly used name for that topic. What this policy page should state is exactly what Hesperian said about the wording above: "an accurate assertion". If in his opinion actual practice "puts too much emphasis on commonness", that's too bad, and is certainly no excuse to not reflect actual practice in written policy. In fact, the statement would be even more accurate with "usually" rather than "often":

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers and, when applicable, the title usually identifies the name most commonly used to refer to the article's topic in English.

Policy should reflect actual practice, not wishful thinking, and this wording reflects actual practice accurately. It also does not state that common name identification is a purpose. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Deliberately misquoting others is evil; I hope you didn't just do that. I did not say 'actual practice "puts too much emphasis on commonness"'; I said your proposed wording "puts too much emphasis on commonness". Please take a little more care, so I can focus on the topic instead of worrying about being misrepresented. Hesperian 23:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the purpose of a title is to enable the article to be found - that is often achieved through redirects, dab pages and so on, making the choice of title irrelevant to that purpose. I would say the purpose is to tell the reader what the article is about. (Though I get the feeling we're arguing about angels on pinheads here - is any of this important to anything?)--Kotniski (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

While the language in this specific policy reguarding using reliable sources to name articles may be "a little over a year old", the concept of basing what we say in our articles on reliable source goes back to the very foundation of Wikipedia. Perhaps it is only recently that this page has recognized that article names are information no less than the other contents of the article. Most of the time, this is not a problem. The name used by the majority of reliable sources will be the best name for an article. On occasion, however, it won't be (the name may already be used by another article, it may be controvercial and thus open to editor consensus, it may fall within a topic area that has an agreed upon naming convention, etc.) The key to naming articles is consenus, pure and simple. That consensus should be formed by thinking about by many different factors... but ultimately it all comes down to consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, yes, basing what we say IN our articles on reliable sources goes back to the very foundation of Wikipedia. The idea that we should NAME our articles also based on reliable sources is new, and far from established. There is no evidence that any significant portion of WP articles were named with usage in reliable sources in mind. But the concept of using the most commonly used name for a given topic as the article title, when applicable and possible, also goes back to the very foundation of Wikipedia. Again, that's not the purpose of the title, but the net result is that a WP article usually indicates the most commonly used name for that topic.

Also, sure, ultimately it all comes down to consensus. But consensus based on what? The what is what this policy is about. In naming any Wikipedia article determining (by consensus) whether the topic has a most commonly used name, and, if so, identifying (again, through consensus) what it is, is fundamental and primary to the process. Only in very rare cases is an identified most common name not used as the title, and the vast majority of the exceptions are dominated by cases in which the topic has no commonly used name at all, consensus cannot be reached on which among several is the most commonly used, or it conflicts with other uses and must be disambiguated. In the latter cases usually the most common name is still reflected in the title. This is actual practice, and written policy should accurately reflect this, not imply that these fundamental and primary considerations are just as important as other much-less-often considered factors that usually only matter when the common name process fails to produce a title.

Kotniski, thanks for weighing in. You (and H) are right: the purpose of the title is not to enable the article to be found. I'm not sure "identify the subject" is quite right either, because I think that might imply that titles should be more descriptive than they need to be. How about this?

The purpose of an article's title is to uniquely identify the article. Titles also name the article topic, usually by reflecting the name most commonly used to refer each article's topic in English.

--Born2cycle (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we understand the meaning of the term "name" differently in this context. I don't see a Wikipedia as confirring a name on a topic... topics already have a name (or several names) before we even think about including them in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not create a name for its topics (which is how I understand what you are saying), it should use pre-existing names for topics. Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Good catch. Titles name the article, not necessarily the topic, though article titles usually reflect the name of the topic (when applicable).

The purpose of an article's title is to uniquely identify the article. Titles also name the article, usually by reflecting the name most commonly used to refer to each article's topic in English, or sometimes by providing a short description of the topic.

Better? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Better... but I am not sure why we need to say it. With this language it sounds repetitious... the two sentences essentially say that we name the article so that it has a name. I am not sure why we say all this... exactly what are we trying to tell the reader in this section? Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If the purpose of our naming convention were to uniquely identify an article, we would use unique and arbitrary numerical identifiers - as the online Britannica does. We do not; therefore we have other purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The practice of consulting reliable sources is much older than a year; this page, like most WP space, follows what the editors actually do, as they realize what it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for the claim that "the practice of consulting reliable sources is much older than a year"? I don't recall ever seeing anyone mentioning use of names in reliable sources in any discussion about naming prior to your insertion of that statement here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and I've already cited it repeatedly. My own experience with WP:RM goes back much more than a year, and is full of such cases; but this section is even older - it is a rarity in that this argument (an appeal to reliable sources) succeeded in changing minds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PM, did you read this entire discussion? You're repeating what I said above: "Yes, the name of the topic in the title is more useful than a random string would be, and is informative". Just because unique identification is not the only purpose does not mean it's not a purpose. I would like you to read this whole section and then let us know where you stand with the general question (title of this section), not just the specific proposed wording. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So let's forget "purpose". The software requires every article to have a title; we have no choice. I have submitted for consideration the following:

For technical reasons, every article must have a unique title. In order to make that title as useful as possible, titles are chosen so that they identify the topic. Ideally, these titles should be:

Hesperian 23:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the present set-up, in which Uniqueness is a separate bullet point. It should be as important and as visible as the others, since it is a very important consideration, without which we would not have many of the present conflicts; but it is not the same as the others, since it is based on the programming of Wikipedia, not on the ongoing consensus of editors. (There is a case that the programming is itself based on Easy to Find; but -unlike the others- we cannot set Uniqueness aside when it is inconvenient.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious?

The statement that "similar articles are often given similar titles" has been marked "dubious". How so? Surely even if there were any reasonable doubt about it to start with, the mountains of evidence filling up this page ought to be enough to convince anyone?--Kotniski (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this statement is not at all dubious... however, I do think we need to be careful not to imply that similar articles must be given similar titles. Looking at how similar articles are named is a very good suggestion, but not a requirement (and there are other criteria that I think should be given far more weight when choosing a name). We do need to make this clear. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have consensus to the change I suggested above and to which Kotniski agree:

Often, but usually only when the other principles don't indicate an obvious choice, similar articles are given similar titles.

I'm putting it in, taking the liberty to assume that others won't find this clarified wording to be dubious. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider it next door to vandalism. We already say that when most or all of the principles concur, use the name on which they agree (even if one principle goes the other way); consistency is no different from anything else.

While there, I removed this extremely dubious edit. Despite the edit summary, uniqueness is not the purpose of our naming conventions; it is a constraint.

Please stop this solitary editing to what no-one else agrees with; if this is an urge to leave a mark on Wikipedia, write an article. It will do more good, and will last longer, than what anybody puts on this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, what are you talking about? I'm trying to incorporate everyone's opinions here. Just above it was Hesperian who said that "The purpose of a title is to provide a unique identifier for a page; nothing more, nothing less". The wording here is the same as to what Kotniski agreed to above, and to which nobody objected, and with which I hoped PBS would agree and so I removed his dubious tag (which you then re-inserted and then proceeded to remove in a huff). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit summary is a falsehood: I object very strongly to "Often, but usually only when the other principles don't indicate an obvious choice, similar articles are given similar titles." This is an overstatement for Consistency, as for other principles; but, as I said immediately above, it is equally true (and it is only a half-truth) that when any principle disagrees with all the others, we tend to go with the majority. The suggestion that it is especially true of Constitency is fraudulent.

Any further restoration of this sentence will be disputed; any further claim that this is undisputed will be a lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Odd article name... mainspace subpage?

Resolved

Don't know where to mention this (nor what to do about it), but I just came across an article "South Asians/North Africans". As far as I know such a title is unacceptable in terms of the hierarchical layout of pages on Wikipedia, but I'm really not sure of the specific rules or what to do about it.... Help?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I have also mentioned this at Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical) as I thought it may be of interest there—i.e., I wasn't sure which watch-listers would feel responsible for it ;)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Forward slashes and dots.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

After all this talk, "follow usage in reliable sources" still can't seem to stick in the intro. As far as I can tell, everyone except Born2cycle agrees that this is crucial. Why isn't it in there? Hesperian 23:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the one thing we're all in agreement about is that this page is supposed to reflect actual practice, as opposed to saying what someone wishes it to be.

With that in mind, there is no evidence that "follow usage in reliable sources" is actual practice with respect to the process of naming articles, especially from before the statement in question was inserted into this policy page with very little discussion by PMAnderson some 16 months ago. With respect to determining the veracity of content in articles, of course reliable sources are used, and always have been. But probably almost every article in Wikipedia was named without anyone given a moment's thought about usage in reliable sources. If that were the measure, it would have been in here from the beginning.

Saying I'm the only one who agrees with what I just said does not address what I just said, much less refute it. Evidence of a reference to usage in reliable sources as grounds for using some name in a naming discussion prior to March of 2008 would be.

And, no, we have not been over this before. I never made this challenge to the claim about using reliable sources in the naming process before (that it is not supported by actual practice). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Everybody except Born2cycle agrees that "follow usage in reliable sources" is crucial, and reflects actual practice. So why isn't it in there? Hesperian 01:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that "follow usage in reliable sources" is usually the best way to name articles... and in resolving disputes it should probably carry the most amount of weight... however, it is not the only valid way to name articles, and we should make that clear. Ultimately all articles are named by consensus. Blueboar (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether Hesperian or anyone else considers "follow usage in reliable sources" in the naming process to be crucial is immaterial here. So is whether Blueboar considers it to be "the best way to name articles". What matters is actual usage.

If anyone really considers it reflect actual practice is another matter. I have to ask what caused you to believe that it is so, and it's a reasonable question to ask. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Only if you will hear the answer, which is threefold:

• My experience on WP:RM goes back much further than a year, and this has always been done. It may be done more rarely when the question is between alternate forms of the same name, with no difference of connotation (Matawan and Matawan, New Jersey, the issue on which b2c has experience.
• Talk:Gdansk/Vote#An_attempt_at_persuasion_on_1466-1793 is about four years old; this is, as I said above, a collection of reliable sources, which was sufficiently persuasive to change minds.
• WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name is not much younger; it speaks of "works of general reference", which means the same thing - but that phrasing may avoid some of the abuse by pedants. (Not all; some will coubtless include the resources in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#General_taxonomy, although none of them are works of general reference.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already indicated that I could accept the policy that says we should take into account the register and intended audience of reliable sources; after all, why should we adopt a name used by reliable sources pitched at an audience completely different from ours? What I will never accept, is the idea that (unverifiable) vernacular usagevernacular usage (when unverifiable) trumps usage in reliable sources.

• If the man in the street calls it X, and every reliable source calls it Y, then we must call it Y.
• If some reliable sources call it Y, and some reliable sources call it Z, then it makes sense to give deep consideration to the nature, intent and audience of the reliable sources, rather than simply counting "votes".

Hesperian 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• • How is vernacular usage unverifiable? See Dictionary of American Regional English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you're overplaying your hand there, but for the sake of moving forward, I'll rephrase the contested statement.. Hesperian 04:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Time to think about merging the other "general" naming convention guidelines into this page. I've identified WP:Naming conventions (common names), WP:Naming conventions (use English), WP:Naming conventions (precision) and WP:Naming conflict as pages that have no need to exist separately as long as the pertinent information from them is included here. Advantages of merging:

1. General simplicity - we wouldn't be sending readers around multiple pages looking for information that we can put in one place.
2. Reduces duplication - if you look at these other pages, they're really just saying the same things over and over ad nauseam, in different words and with different levels of competence. Nothing will be lost by merging them and losing the effectively duplicate text - it shouldn't result in this page becoming too long.
3. Ease of management - having everything in one place makes it easier to keep track of changes and prevent contradictions and inaccuracies from creeping in (indeed there probably are quite a few such, which will need to be resolved at merge time.

I've started drafting what the merged page might look like - User:Kotniski/NC. (This is by no means a draft yet - though a possible structure for the page is beginning to take shape; the later technical sections of this page are not included in that draft, as I don't foresee them changing significantly as a result of this). Reaction welcome; I'll leave notes on the other pages as well.--Kotniski (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea. I have a feeling that there is a lot of Instruction Creep and POV forking going on with this Policy (some intentional, some unintentional). In some cases, seperate guidelines have been created to "carve out" exceptions to this Policy. Merging will give us a chance to review these exceptions and determine if there is still consensus for having them. In other cases a guideline was spun off in order to futher explain something stated here... but has been edited to the point where it actually contradicts what is stated here. Merging will highlight the contradictions, and allow us to reach a centralized consenus that will resolve them. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced.

• WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:UE are page-sized chunks on a single topic, which go into detail (like what we do about ae), which should be documented somewhere, but is not needed here. Including them would make this page much longer.
• WP:PRECISION should be reviewed, since it doesn't seem to have been maintained lately. Much of it can be reduced, since it is aiming at what we now say here.
• WP:Naming conflict is a page of (largely useful) advice, but should stay a guideline. Advice does require common sense, and does have exceptions.
• Its current status is the result of two single-purpose accounts, who would very much like to have guidance which supports the use of self-identifying names even when reliable sources don't use them. This is a disciplinary problem, not a problem with the remaining 90% of the guideline; merger would only move the problem here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no ideological problems with a merge, since at the moment people are claiming "contradictions" between them based on misunderstandings of the guidance. However a merge needs to ensure that long as the long-standing advice of the pages is carried over, and there is no attempt to cover a non-consensus change to the basic guidance in the move. The issue of naming self-identifying entities is covered in detail in the long-standing version of "Naming conflict" and not mentioned here. That has led to problems with PMA and others who have been attempting to radically revise the guidance on this issue in a non-consensus direction. (The current version is locked in a non-consensus form). PMA misrepresents the discussion there since the main disruption to the long-standing guidance comes from him and some of his allies edit-warring to get their own version of the guidance onto the page. Apart from this, the only problem with a merge is practical, in that Naming conflict covers quite a bit of ground, and would have to be condensed somewhat to fit in here. Xandar 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words... the various sides in that particular dispute can not even agree as to what they are arguing about, much less how to resolve the issue. This is yet another reason why we need to consolidate everything on to one page... we need to re-examine the entire concept of how we name articles (including how we resolve disputes over what to name articles)... see where consensus has changed and where it has not. Then we need to rewrite the Policy to reflect that consensus. and Then we can go and create guidelines that are in sync with this policy... instead of having a pleathora of "exceptions" and topic area "carve outs". Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I support the concept of a merge for the reasons stated. It's probably going to be a difficult, but necessary, task. It may take a long time to work out all the kinks, but it's rarely easy to clarify and simplify stuff like this. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think those who fear there might be a lot of information lost or a great reexpansion of this page (which, note, we've just managed to halve in size through rationalization) might be pleasantly (or unpleasantly) surprised. There really is a lot of waffle and repetition on those pages - there's very very little specific information like the ae thing (and anyway, if someone was looking for information on how we write ae, how would they know to look for it at the page it's on now?) There are a few relatively fundamental things, though, like how we treat official names where there's no common name - that sort of thing, if it's true, surely belongs on the central page (and if it's not true, shouldn't be in any guideline). The stuff about Google searching etc. could be moved to WP:Search engine test if it's not there already, and summarized here (again, people looking for such information aren't going to guess which page it's currently on).--Kotniski (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, here's a draft-of-a-draft for people to play with. User:Kotniski/NC - the text there is intended to replace the current content of this page from "Use common names" down to (but not including) "Name construction". As it stands now, it would add 8K to this page. It's still messy and incomplete in places, but I believe I've got all the substance from the other to-be-merged pages. Feel free to edit constructively. Goodnight, --Kotniski (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've improved it a bit more, so I'd now call it a draft rather than a draft-of-a-draft, and I wouldn't call it messy or incomplete any more, though more eyes would be helpful.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It definitely is looking like a step in the right direction. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Change, or clarification without change?

NB. The "draft" being referred to here is now at WP:Naming convention draft.

Recently arrived here from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Rewrite of WP:Naming conventions.

Do editors here have a consensus here on what the naming conventions policy actually is and are harmoniously working on clarifying the existing confusing wording -- or are there proposals now being made for changing the policy in a substantial way? patsw (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any proposals for substantial change (though there may be differing personal interpretations of what the policy currently is). Certainly my merge proposal above is not intended to change anything substantially, just describe reality more clearly and concisely.--Kotniski (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there are some very substantial changes being made and posited here, including establishing new naming principles, removing language relevant to exceptions and attempting to codify all guidelines under whatever principles are finally determined here. There is certainly not consensus on all the proposed changes. It's certainly not a case of just taking what existed until recently and "Clarifying wording". Xandar 13:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar... Of course there isn't a consensus on all the proposed changes yet... we are just beginning to review the policy and should not expect everyone to agree right at the start. That's why Kotniski is working on a revised version at a seperate draft page. If his draft is missing something you think is important, suggest a change to it and work with us to reach a new consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar has in fact made a change to the draft - adding a large section which I presume to have been pasted from Naming Conflict. I'll leave it there - it's the "How to choose between controversial names" section - but I believe it's redundant, since everything said there is either trivial, or said already, or dealt with more accurately at WP:NCGN. But we'll see if people think it has any value (please remember, folks, that the more we put in, the less likely people are to read any given part).--Kotniski (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of it is redundant... but not all of it. I have edited it a bit, and made some suggestions on the draft's talk page.

Actually, more useful text (with which these instructions are largely redundant) can be found at WP:UE. The bullet points really come down to use the most common name, where it exists, and if not, use the local name; but they take a long way around to get there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So why not just say that, without taking the long way round?--Kotniski (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I was, as far as possible, quoting. The multiple edits that have gone into UE are worth preserving, and quoting them exactly is most likely to be consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the changes?

It seems to me that if there are substantial changes to be made as opposed to copyediting the current text, they ought to be explicitly itemized as proposals and discussed, rather than introduced by stealth as a policy rewrite. patsw (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't think there are any such changes. If my proposed text is felt to make such changes, then that's an error on my part and/or the part of the person by whom it is felt. It ought to be resolvable by discussion here.--Kotniski (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it appears to be a "rewrite" de novo -- that is starting from a clean sheet and not bound to the letter or spirit of the current text of the policy and not bound by precedent in its application.

Could we just catch our breath and just agree what's being done here? patsw (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On what do you base your observation? What in the letter or the spirit of the current policy is not present in the new wording? What has been added? (Obviously quite a lot of the words have changed; but the fact that the same thing can be said in different words should not be a revelation to Wikipedians...) --Kotniski (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is considering (or at least intending) a major change to "what the policy means". But, we are considering a significant re-write, which will change "how the policy says it". Go slow... don't assume everyone understands what you are saying when you say it... and don't reject ideas and suggestions simply because they are a "change"... think about them first, and then either support or oppose them. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree. There are several major changes being proposed - elimination of specific exception clause to common name - five new key principles for naming - new consistency guidance - changes re: self-identifying names. Whether all these go through to actually become major changes is in the balance, but the current ever-changing state of the page leaves most people completely unclear as to what is going on, or what the eventual intentions are. Xandar 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think anything is being proposed that doesn't accurately represent current practice, or is it just changes in the way we present it? What do you think is going to change materially as a result of the changes being made/proposed? Can you give an example of an article whose title might be expected to change as a result of the new guidance?--Kotniski (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

I thought that "Policies" and "Guidelines" were not the same thing and should be kept separate? As I understand it, Guidelines help users to implement a Policy correctly. Are Guidelines, in general, now considered redundant because the relevant Policy page already states how to implement it? Surely Policy pages would be huge and unmanageable (not to mention unreadable) if all the Guidelines were merged into them? If the various pages are unclear or contain "a lot of waffle" (as one user said), then that is merely an argument for rewriting the pages, and is even possibly an argument against merging since the "waffle" would have to be rewritten anyway! Jubilee♫clipman 19:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand - the proposed merged page is already in existence (see WP:Naming convention draft) and it is neither huge nor unmanageable (far more manageable than the separate pages, anyway). And the waffle has been rewritten - with precisely the result you can see on the draft page. The distinction between policy and guidelines in this area is largely in the minds of two resident editors - I'd be happy for the merged page to be marked as a guideline (it doesn't seem to me to carry any of the characteristics of a policy page), but no-one else cares much. --Kotniski (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar articles generally should have similar titles. ???

The statement Similar articles generally should have similar titles keeps getting inserted. Who agrees saying this accurately reflects current practice?

• Oppose As stated above, except for a few isolated exceptions like U.S. city names that are not on the AP list, and groups of articles about topics that don't have obvious names, like "List of ...", "Geography of ... ", etc., in general similar articles generally do not have similar names. Instead, most articles simply reflect the name of its topic, and are disambiguated only when necessary. That's current and longstanding practice, and, so, it's inaccurate to state that "similar articles generally should have similar titles."

  I'm not opposed to a statement that is nuanced to note that this does not apply to the vast majority of articles, but my attempts to change the wording to say this have all be reverted back to this blanket and inaccurate statement. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • How many times do we have to go over the same ground? I've lost count of the number of times I've enumerated the many conventions that embrace consistency. You haven't even acknowledged the most obvious case, royalty. There are facts here that you are persistently ignoring. That is no way to go about convincing people of your opinion. Hesperian 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • We'll keep going over it until we stop generalizing exceptions into a principle that is supposed to apply to all articles.

      Again, royalty is merely one of those groups in which the most common name is not obvious. There is no dispute about the use of consistent naming conventions in those situations.

      However many groups there are for which common names are not obvious and so some kind of consistent manufactured convention is used to name them instead does not at all establish a basis for a general "Similar articles generally should have similar titles" principle that implicitly applies to all articles. The vast majority of articles in Wikipedia have obvious names and belong to groups in which some names must be disambiguated - it is simply not true that all those articles should have similar names, yet that is what we are implying by stating that "Similar articles generally should have similar titles". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

      • What you actually said above is "except for a few isolated exceptions like ... [royalty not listed here]... in general similar articles generally do not have similar names." You acknowledge that this was a false statement as worded?

        Of course we should, in general, use the most common name when the most common name is genuinely obvious. That is, in my view, precisely what the convention says. The convention tells us that (to paraphrase) "recognisability and consistency are two different principles. Find the best balance." The entire point of "Find the best balance" is that consistency may have the stronger claim in some cases, whereas recognisabiliy may have the stronger claim in others. In cases where there is an obvious most common name, recognisability has a very strong claim, and will usually win. So what's the problem?

        Hesperian 00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

        • I actually mostly agree with you, or if I would if I wasn't aware of the devil in the details with respect to our different definitions of "recognisability"—"prevalence of usage in reliable sources" v "prevalance of usage by the man in the street". Leaving that issue aside, I really do think that we should not be imposing consistency in here over and above the consistency that is present out there. Hesperian 00:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I don't acknowledge that was a false statement above as worded. You've excluded the crucial phrase, "and groups of articles about topics that don't have obvious names", which clearly includes "royalty". Well, it seems clear to me. The "few isolated exceptions" clause applies only to groups of articles that all use predisambiguation even though they do have obvious names, like U.S. city names that are not on the AP list, and some ship names. I don't mean to imply those are the only ones, I just can't think of any others - can you?

          I'm trying to avoid the need to "find balance", because the flipside of the "find balance" coin is conflict and disagreement. If we're clear about where, how and why consistency applies, and where it doesn't, then we will have very little need for balance, or conflict. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

          • If you don't acknowledge that as false, then we have a problem. The vast majority of royalty topics do have obvious names; they just don't have obviously article titles because of many of the obvious names are ambiguous. The examples you have given above ("list of", "geography of") are descriptive titles, and it is not at all clear that what you've written applies to names as well. I wouldn't normally pick at your wording, but you've put the same wording into the convention with this diff. Hesperian 01:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, our point of disagreement is about whether the vast majority of royalty topics have obvious names. It is my impression that most members of royalty have multiple legitimate names by which they are known, and none of which is obviously the most common name used to refer to them. I've always thought that that was the main reason there was a separate naming convention for royalty - to avoid having to debate about which one of the various multiple names each member of royalty has will be the title of the article. Whether you agree with me or not, that's what I was thinking. Maybe I should have said "and groups of articles each about a topic that doesn't have a single obvious name"? That's what I meant. I mean, having multiple obvious names, none of which is the obvious candidate for the article title, is the problem.

              At any rate, my point is that if you click on SPECIAL:RANDOM repeatedly, you will only rarely come upon an article with a title that is something other than the single obvious name of the topic, and is constructed to be similar to others in some group, especially if you exclude those topics that don't have single obvious names and those disambiguated in order to avoid an actual conflict. In other words, consistent naming within a group purely for the sake of consistent naming within that group is a rare exception, not a principle generally followed in Wikipedia. Yet that's what "Similar articles generally should have similar titles" implies is the case. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support (obviously) as a principle, generally followed; when principles have an apparant conflict, other guideline pages determine which principles are more principle. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think as a brief articulation of one consideration, presented as (the last) one of a list of considerations, "similar articles generally should have similar titles" is quite acceptable. If there's a fear that people might wikilawyer with the phrase out of context, then I suppose we might further qualify it somehow.--Kotniski (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  Now that's a good point. We need to do something with common name, as certain editors are wikilawyering it into overriding policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  Would you suggest that we abandon reliable sources as the priamary indicator for the naming of articles? If so what would you suggest that we use and remain consistent with the content policies? --PBS (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"'similar articles generally should have similar titles' is quite acceptable." Not if it is placed on the same level as naming articles after the names used in reliable sources. For example British Armed Forces, should not be named Military of the United Kingdom, just because many of the other articles use that name for most countries are phrased that way. If reliable sources do not usually use Military of the United Kingdom nor should we.

If some guidelines such as those on monarchs argue for consistency, it is not because "'similar articles generally should have similar titles' is quite acceptable." it is because of the inherent problems of the use of reliable sources, using the name of monarchs in context. As I put into the article page before: "Sometimes reliable sources do not indicate what is the most appropriate name for the title of an article in a general encyclopaedia because the name used in reliable sources are mentioned within a specific context. For example a mention of an English king calling a parliament in book on English history is unlikely to mention specifically that the king was the king England or that he was calling an English Parliament. If it is necessary to add words to the name to create an unambiguous title, consider using additional wording as used in other similar articles." -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow all the steps in that reasoning, but if it leads to "Victoria of the United Kingdom" = good, "Military of the United Kingdom" = bad, then my intuition tells me there's something wrong somewhere.--Kotniski (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I guess what you're saying is that we can throw the sources out of the window if it's done in the name of disambiguation, but not in the name of precision. I.e. effectively, we can be creative when the article title is a name, but not when the article title is a description. What's the rationale for this? I would have thought that if anything, it should be the other way round - readers expect editors to be free with the wordings they use in descriptions (that's basic to Wikipedia), but won't expect them to be making up names.--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is what they are saying.

The standard methods of disambiguation partition the title into two parts—the name of the topic, and a disambiguation term—and typically in a way that makes the distinction crystal clear; e.g. Name (Disambiguation). PBS and B2c are saying that the name of the topic should follow usage in the real world; and that it is wrong to impose consistency on the name, over and above whatever consistency exists in the real world; but that we can do whatever we bloody well want with the disambiguation term, which is a Wikipedia-internal construct. Hesperian 14:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and beyond that, I'm saying "similar articles should have similar titles" is a principle that applies in only certain rare contexts. Please, count how many times you need to click SPECIAL:RANDOM until you encounter an article named according to "similar articles should have similar titles". Then do it again, and perhaps one more time. Can you find even three such articles before you click SPECIAL:RANDOM 100 times? What are they?

A principle utilized in such rare contexts that it applies in only a tiny percentage of the articles should not be stated as a general principle, unless those contexts are clarified. This objection does not apply to any of the other principles, as stated, certainly not common name, the adherence to which is found in almost every click on SPECIAL:RANDOM. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If "consistency" is not a principle, and if subarticles cannot define exceptions to the principles here, then a change in policy has been made by a grammatical attack. At the present time, there are some (small) areas of Wikipedia where the "common names" policy has been modified to support consistency. If you can find another principle which would support WP:FLORA, I'd be happy to see it.

I think an acceptable combination would be to add multiple principles:

1. consistency in disambiguation methods: When disambiguation is necessary, standard formats and terms should be used. For example City, State, rather than City of State or City (founded 1630).
2. consistency in whether to use disambigution: In fields where conflicts of names are common, a consistent choice of whether to disambiguate may be made by guideline, (if usually done in reliable sources). For example Anaheim, California and Annaheim, Saskatchewan.
3. consistency in descriptive titles:(I don't have a good phrasing, but, something related to List of foo and List of X in Y, as opposed to List of Y's Xs or List of Yian Xs.
4. (I may have missed some currently used)

Or we can just restore the exceptions clause. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Hesperian, I have already covered most of the points of why this bullet point is a problem in the section "#Consistent" higher up the page. With royalty all we do is add additional information in a way that conflicts with how WP:Disambiguation suggests doing it. Indeed there have been discussions on the talk page of "royalty and nobility" to go over to "name numberal (state)" which would be closer to the way that WP:Disambiguation suggests doing it (and for those who do not know a "," in a name takes the "pipe trick" in a similar way to parenthesis). WP:NC (royalty and nobility), WP:NC (ships), WP:NC (aircraft), and many more are all based on the name in reliable sources, where they differ is not with the Naming conventions policy, but with WP:Disambiguation.

What we do not want is someone renaming "the Holocaust" to "Jewish Genocide" because "similar articles generally should have similar titles" and most other genocides have genocide in the title.

Arthur Rubin, I do not see how consistency has anything to do with WP:NC (flora) as flora too works from the principles of reliable sources and consistency as phrased also undermines that usage of reliable sources. eg we have an article called sweet chestnut so we should also have an article called horse chestnut because "similar articles generally should have similar titles". -- PBS (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference between "name numeral (state)" and "name numeral of state" is that the second can go in running text without the pipe trick, and encourages editors to mention the state. (Henry IV of England is linked when first mentioned; at that point, many readers in many articles will benefit from the assurance that we are talking about the Lancastrian King of England, not Henry of Navarre or the Emperor of the same name and numeral; when this isn't the case, we can mask.) I don't see why changing is an advantage.

Perhaps more seriously, the recurrent discussion is over what we do when we aren't forced to disambiguate. The arguments, such as they are, for and against Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom apply equally, both ways, to Elizabeth II (United Kingdom). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that Arthur's suggestion above would be a big step in the right direction. That's what I mean by clarifying context. Again, I hope everyone here takes the SPECIAL:RANDOM challenge. Also, I did not say consistency is not a principle; I said it's not a general principle. It's a principle that only applies in a relatively small percentage of articles, and that's not true of any of the other principles we have listed. So the contexts in which the consistency principle has application need to be clarified, perhaps something like what Arthur suggests (this is not an endorsement of that particular example in toto). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All of these principles only apply to a limited number of articles. Even uniqueness, which is enforced by the operating system, only applies when there are two candidates for a given name.

Taking a random article, is any other article likely to want the title M1918 light repair truck? (So uniqueness does not apply.) Yet consistency does apply (without conflicting with any other principle): in putting the code number first, in not including the manufacturer, in making the type of vehicle lower case. (These are artitrary choices; but being consistent on them serves reader and editor.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When I lasted checked WP:NC (flora), it said to use the scientific name even if there is a single, common name, which refers to that genus or species. I don't see how B2C a wikilawyer could avoid renaming the article to the common name, in that case, even with WP:NC (flora) as a guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But WP:FLORA has produced its own wikilawyers, who inist on exactly that: using Latin names even when there is a single, unambiguous common name - to the detriment of the encyclopedia. (See Talk:Yucca brevifolia for one incredible example.) I sympathize with Born2cycle when encountering such pedantry; but I do not wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater. (And I am not convinced that the pedantry would be affected in the slightest if B2C won his edit war.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson. Every article is unique, whether it is so specifically to avoid conflict or not. Therefore, the principle of uniqueness applies to all articles. The vast majority, if not all, articles are "Recognizable", "Easy to find", "Precise", "Concise" and "Unique". Only a small percentage (almost certainly less than 5%, perhaps less than 1%) are named consistently with other similar articles.

That is, take some significant number (not just one, at least 20, preferably 100) of titles at SPECIAL:RANDOM, and assign counts to how many are...

1. recognizable
2. Easy to find
3. Precise
4. Concise
5. Unique
6. Consistent ("Named similarly to similar articles")

I predict your percentages will be well over 90% for the first five, and under 5% for the last.

I also think this exercise will clearly demonstrate that "Use the most common name" and "Use English" are also actual general principles that apply in practice to the vast majority of our articles, the unfortunate and blatant relatively rare exceptions notwithstanding. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I find neither result. Much more than 5% are named systematically (and when they are not, there is a clear pattern for the remainder of the category); much less than 90% have any particular uniqueness or precision, because much less than 90% need disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a given article title is not unique or precise unless the reason it is unique or precise is for disambiguation? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

However, if you stop edit-warring for an extreme, and consider what more moderate position can actually gain consensus and still be quotable against the pedants, we may actually get something done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Septentrionalis, ignoring B2C). I see what you mean about the Joshua Tree. Perhaps there's nothing that would help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignore me all you want, Arthur, but the argument stands without even being addressed (unless you accept PM's premise that an article name is only unique if its named is specifically constructed in order to avoid conflict with another article), much less refuted. As a principle, "similar articles should be named similarly" applies to only a small percentage of all Wikipedia articles, in stark contrast to the broad application of all the other truly general principles listed, and with some that are not even listed as general principles (like "Use english" and "common name").

PMAnderson, I'm not edit-warring for an extreme. If you think I am, you must be misreading or misunderstanding my words. To the contrary, I'm arguing against a misrepresentation of actual practice in this policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't behave like the last editor to edit-war on this page; you are entitled to make up your arguments, but not your facts. If you repeat this nonsense, I will ignore you too; similarity applies as much to the styling of military hardware articles or the canals of Lincolnshire as to the towns of the United States. It rarely conflicts with other principles, because the changes required for consistency (like the choice between M1918 light repair truck and Dodge M1918 light repair truck) rarely make much difference from their point of view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I can sense you're annoyed, but, frankly I'm not sure what you're disagreeing about. What actual words of mine do you think amount to "nonsense"? I really think you're misunderstanding.

Yes, consistency rarely conflicts with other principles. So what? I'm not arguing that it does. I really don't understand why you bring up assertions like that as if they are refutations of something I'm saying when they don't even address what I'm saying. If you think I did say something that you think meant something like "consistency often conflicts with other principles", please identify where I said that. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As a principle, "similar articles should be named similarly" applies to only a small percentage of all Wikipedia articles, in stark contrast to the broad application of all the other truly general principles listed, Bollocks. If this meant, as Kotniski suggests in the next section, that consistency rarely conflicts, it might be partly defensible, but you've just denied that.

The only remaining creditable explanation is that you think that consistency means only the handful of cases where we have a guideline recommending consistency. This may be a sign that the policy could use clarification, when possible.

But if you mean that only a handful of articles have a name similar to the name of some other similar article, then you exist in a universe of your own and have a different Wikipedia than the rest of us. Caistor Canal is named similarly to the other canals in Lincolnshire; that's all this principle says. (And, like the other principles, where there is no conflict, it's followed obviously and painlessly.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said or implied "only a handful of articles have a name similar to the name of some other similar article". I did say "only a small percentage", meaning less than five percent. Why do you twist "only a small percentage" into "only a handful"? That's going from about 150,000 articles to no more than around five, a difference of over 3 orders of magnitude.

And yes, Caistor Canal is an example of one of those relatively rare articles. Do you believe such articles comprise more than 5% of all articles? If no, do you think "only a small percentage" is an unfair characterization of "less than 5%"? If "less than 5%" does not constitute "small percentage", what does?

I wish you would stop being convinced you disagree, and take a second to understand what I'm saying. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the debaters' distinction between "only a handful," and only a small percentage"; it invites unwelcome inferences. Yes, I do believe it is more than 5%; in my tour of random articles, I found that most articles belonged to a category which was (more or less - none of our principles are followed perfectly) consistently named; or a class - I do not mean to confine this to our categories. Anyone who believes it 5% is invited to display their 20. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

30 SPECIAL:RANDOM articles

Here are the results of clicking on SPECIAL:RANDOM 30 times in a row.

1. You Got What It Takes
2. Ngkoth language
3. Geoffrey de Runcey
4. Burnelli CBY-3
5. René Alvarado
6. S. Alagirisamy
7. KattenKabinet
8. The Sounds of History
9. William Williamson (canoer)
10. Michael W. Ryan
11. Jeremy Wright
12. David P. Norton
13. Grethe and Jørgen Ingmann
14. Roger Moe
15. Asahi Beer Hall
16. Bedfield
17. Cupless bra
18. ASIC (disambiguation)
19. Pope Celestine
20. United States Business and Industry Council
21. California Waiting
22. Hugo Blanco
23. Shanghai Grand Theatre
24. Makarki Directional Radio Tower
25. Gymnastics at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic team all-around
26. Z1
27. Young Folks
28. Wildwood Park for the Arts
29. Billboard Top Hits: 1992
30. Humphry

Now, for each principle, let's see how many, and what percentage, apply.

• recognizable - 30 (100%)
• Easy to find - 30 (100%)
• Precise - 30 (100%)
• Concise - 29 - all but #25 - (97%)
• Unique - 30 (100%)
• Consistent ("Named similarly to similar articles") - 3 - 2, 4, 25 (10%)

That last one is not general at all, and in a very different league. Now, if we said something like "Similar articles should have their names disambiguated similarly", that would be much less problematic (and note that this says nothing about whether all or just some within a given category should be disambiguated). The current wording suggests the principle applies to all or most articles, the way all the other ones clearly do. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is the problem. B2c does not see consistency in several aspects where it is the underlying principle for what we have done.

• The modern biographical articles all include first names, and include them first - unlike other encyclopedias, and interfering with the search engine. In some cases, this is also disambiguation, but not all; we only have one de Runcey; and it would also disambiguate, and allow the pipe trick, to use de Runcey, Geoffrey.
• Pope Celestine is a disambiguation page between five Popes of that name, all with Pope, although none of them need it for disambiguation from anybody else; they are disambiguated from each other by numeral. Why? Consistency with Pope John I, where it is disambiguation.
• The Sounds of History would be shorter without The, and - by the standard both of us support - it's excessive precision.
• The disambiguation canoer is consistency in two senses: the use of profession as disambiguation, and the choice of canoer, rather than canoeist or boater, as the name of the profession.
• Billboard Top Hits: 1992 is part of a series. We have chosen to name them consistently, by including the subtitle in this format; we could, for all the rest of this page, name some of them Billboard Top Hits and then disambiguate with (1992) or (Rhino, 1992).
• Our rules for capitalization of descriptive phrases (like Cupless bra) are justified by consistency.
• The use of United States, not U.S., is not decided by usage, which would be happy with either.
• For that matter, the use of (disambiguation), rather than (other) or (more) is a typical example of consistency.

And so on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a problem here where those who are denying the importance of consistency are themselves taking a hell of a lot of consistency for granted. You want 20%? I can give you that in one fell swoop. Every other encyclopedia entitles articles about people like this: Spears, Britney. Here on Wikipedia, we entitle them like this: Britney Spears. Try creating an article using the former convention, and you'll find out how much we value consistency. Hesperian 23:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not questioning the value of consistency in general, guys. I'm questioning the veracity of "Similar articles should be named similarly." If it were true that "similar articles should be named similarly.", then the article on Britney Spears would be names Britney (entertainer), to be named similarly to the similar article, Madonna (entertainer)

And consistent use of (disambiguation) is not an example of ""Similar articles should be named similarly.", but "Similar articles should be disambiguated similarly.", which I said above I would not object to. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is quibbling. The disambiguator is part of our article name; or else Uniqueness is meaningless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not quibbling. Only a small minority of articles have a disambiguator. The other principles apply to almost all articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh God. Please tell me you are not serious. Please tell me you don't need someone to explain to you why your Britney (entertainer) example is completely bogus. Hesperian 00:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As for your 30 articles above, you should have removed the disambiguation pages. Titles of disambiguation pages merely reflect the fact that the title is both a conceivable name and an ambiguous one. Therefore they tell us nothing. Having removed them, and having recognised that we insist on nearly all articles on people being entitled using the "Firstname Lastname" formula, you will find that the "consistency" principle influences around half your titles. Hesperian 00:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

B2c, you seem to have difficulty accepting these criteria as guiding principles that will come into conflict and must be balanced. All five were previously worded as instructions: "Do this!"—as in "Concise: Keep it brief". For some reason consistency was singled out for special treatment, and watered down to a wishy-washy suggestion: "Names should generally..." And you're still complaining about it! Read the others! Notice how they are all worded as "Do this!" Note that none of them bother to qualify and quibble over the fact that it isn't always appropriate or even possible to "Do this!". If, as you say, you are not questioning the value of consistency, why are you still picking at the wording of this one criterion, when the is already much weaker than the others? If you're happy with "Concise: Keep it brief", then will you be happy with "Consistent: Name articles like similar articles are named"? No, I thought not. Hesperian 00:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, H, I have difficulty accepting these criteria as guiding principles that will come into conflict and must be balanced. I have difficulty accepting that because in practice that is not the case for the vast majority of articles, and doesn't need to be the case for almost all of the remainder. Accepting it is unnecessarily creating a system of conflict.

One of the main reasons to even have written policy and guidelines is to reduce (if not eliminate) conflict. Yet by listing these principles in a manner that makes them inherently conflicted and so that they "must be balanced" does the exact opposite. It would be one thing if there was no alternative. But that's not the case. The principles could easily be stated much clearer and much less conflicted, and starting by being clear in which contexts the principle of consistency applies would take us a long way in that direction. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If only a small minority had a disambiguator, then Uniqueness would only apply to that small minority - and to occasional primary uses. So the argument that Consistency is much rarer than other principles is -well- inconsistent.

But small minority seems to be growing before our eyes; B2C's sample includes at least two disambiguated pages, and another couple of disambiguation pages; there are contexts where 13% is "small" - is this one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Uniqueness applies to every single article, for no article can exist unless its title is unique. Of course, uniqueness is not an active factor if the name that results from applying the other principles does not conflict with other existing article names, but all articles are nevertheless unique.

Consistency does not apply to every single article, active or not; not even close. Even if you include First Last people articles it's not even close to the 95+% applicability threshold met by the other listed principles.

Put another way, except for a few well established exceptions (like Fixed-wing aircraft), any article not adhering to any of the other listed principles is a valid reason for listing it at WP:RM, but simply not being named similarly to other similar articles is not a valid reason to list most articles. Or at least it wasn't prior to adding this statement to WP:NC. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My 20

Okay; I took the random 20 challenge. Here's my 20:

Article	Conventions followed
Meta-plastic design	Only minor grammatical conventions; e.g. not capitalising the letter after a hyphen)
Blum Creek	none—The "Name Type" formula evident here is followed in real world naming; there is no evidence that consistency was brought to bear in choosing this name.
Pelargonium	Scientific name, consistent with nearly all other plant genera. But this is a special case, as the more common name "geranium" is horrible ambiguous. It might be argued that this is consistency in disambiguation rather than consistency in naming.
Substitution-permutation network	none
Montresta	none
Martín Garatuza	Firstname Lastname formula, contrary to every other encyclopedia.
Illinois Route 48	Strong evidence of consistency with other articles in Category:State highways in Illinois; across-the-board rejection of reasonable alternatives like "Illinois State Route 48" and "IL 48".
Nokia 6255i	Make model convention is extremely strong in Category:Nokia mobile phones and related categories. Is this a consequence of consistency in real world names?
Saints in Protestantism	A clunky title that bears testimony to our obsession with the "X in/of Y" title formula.
Tom Maynard	Firstname Lastname formula, contrary to every other encyclopedia.
Sid Meier's Railroads!	None.
BL 4 inch Mk IX naval gun	Extremely strong consistency with other articles in Category:Naval guns of the United Kingdom. Surely this exceeds real world consistency.
List of Mauthausen-Gusen inmates	No name for this topic; description follows "List of" convention.
Ghetto Girls	None.
Lee Horsley	Firstname Lastname formula, contrary to every other encyclopedia.
Meeker Slough (Creek)	For reasons of consistency, we all agree this should be moved to Meeker Slough (creek); but that is consistency in disambiguation, rather than consistency in name.
Hedgehog's dilemma	None
American Topical Association	None
Alistair Nicholson	Firstname Lastname formula, contrary to every other encyclopedia.
Jon Mannah	Firstname Lastname formula, contrary to every other encyclopedia.

I think these can be grouped by the degree and nature of influence that the consistency principle has had:

• Strong: Pelargonium, Illinois Route 48, BL 4 inch Mk IX naval gun, Martín Garatuza, Tom Maynard, Lee Horsley, Alistair Nicholson, Jon Mannah
• Strong, but name is descriptive, or name is consistent in disambiguation term only: Saints in Protestantism, List of Mauthausen-Gusen inmates, Meeker Slough (creek)
• Weak or None: Meta-plastic design, Blum Creek, Substitution-permutation network, Montresta, Sid Meier's Railroads!, Ghetto Girls, Hedgehog's dilemma, American Topical Association
• Unsure: Nokia 6255i

Hesperian 00:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Actually, the capitalization of several of these is also an arbitrary choice for consistency; for example, Meta-plastic design could be Meta-Plastic Design, as it is in the text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Very creative, H, but there is no First Last convention. There is a common name convention. Articles about people are named in accordance with how those people are most commonly referred to in reliable sources. Hence Jimmy Carter and not Carter, Jimmy or Carter, James. Jimmy Carter is not so named in order to be consistent with any other similar articles; Jimmy Carter is so named because that's how the real world tends to refer to that topic.

If you try to rename Jimmy Carter to Carter, Jimmy, the arguments you get will not be about inconsistency with other articles names, but about inconsistency with real world usage. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why is Albert Einstein not moved to "Einstein". And why is Carl Linneaus not moved to "L."? Hesperian 02:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, but I'm quite confident it's not because most other articles about people in WP follow the First Last convention. Clearly both Albert Einstein and Einstein were and are used to refer to him, and both qualify as names. Madonna (entertainer) and Sting (singer) are not at First Last, but neither is known well by those names. No idea about Carl Linneaus, except I don't think he's widely known as "L.", mostly only within botanical references, apparently.

By the way traditional encyclopedias are alphabetized and so it makes sense to order people by last name, putting that first. That requirement does not apply to an electronic-only encyclopedia, so using the more common format is more natural.

Anyway, you can take my argument and apply it to "unique" too - that most articles do not have the names they have in order to be unique. That is, the articles that would be named different if there was no uniqueness requirement is probably a relatively small minority too. But, then, uniqueness is not listed with the other obviously general principles that do apply to the vast majority of articles, and that's appropriate. And that's where consistency belongs too. And, like uniqueness, it needs to be clarified, and shouldn't simply say "similar articles should be named similarly", which wrongly implies that that should apply to the titles of all articles that have similar articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that you don't have an inkling why we prefer the name "Albert Einstein" over "Einstein". Propose a move to "Einstein" on the basis that this is more commonly used, more concise, and sufficiently precise (i.e. a primary use). People will oppose. Do you mean to tell me you can't anticipate what they'll say? This beggars belief.

Such a move would of course be opposed on the grounds that every other person article in the entire encyclopedia includes a given name (or rarely initials) in the title. There are no exceptions that I am aware of; the putative exceptions you have offered above are not cases where a given name has been dropped as redundant, but rather cases where a stage name or pen name is used as the title instead of an real name. Hesperian 06:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Albert Einstein" over "Einstein" was covered previously in this policy by the wording "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The obvious solution is to put this wording back as that wording had consensus for many years and I have not yet seen anyone who objects to it. -- PBS (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That wording is so vague you can read pretty much anything you want into it (which isn't necessarily not true of the replacement wording either). Hardly surprising no-one objects to something if it says nothing.--Kotniski (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The wording covered the usage "Albert Einstein" and not "Einstein, Albert" because from within the text of an article one writes "Albert Einstein" not "Einstein, Albert" as shown by the first article that links directly to the Einstein article (Arthur Schopenhauer). -- PBS (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've just proved my point about reading whatever you want into that wording. (I get just Einstein from it; someone will no doubt get Victoria of the United Kingdom from it, even though that phrase would almost never appear in the text of an article; meaningless waffle pleases everyone - except the people who misguidedly read this page believing it to be Wikipedia policy.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

misguidedly read this page believing it to be Wikipedia policy. Could this be because of the large {{policy}} template which says it is? But that's another effort, not best done here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a crap whether the old wording covered it. The question under discussion here is upon what basis to we all agree that the article belongs at "Albert Einstein" not "Einstein"? I'm quite certain the answer isn't because the convention used to say "Generally, article naming should prefer....". I assert that the answer is in fact because this is one of our longest-standing and strongest conventions. That is, we use Firstname Lastname for reasons of consistency. Hesperian 11:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But the old wording explains why we put first name and then family name because it allows "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature", while putting surname first then family name second does not (unless they are Chinese or some other countries). The details of how we implement the old policy wording is then detailed in WP:NC (people), WP:NC (Chinese)#Order of names etc, consistency is unnecessary in this case and decremental in many other if consistency is raised to the same level as the usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Try telling that to the monarchs people. All the time you had that sentence written there supposedly as policy, allegedly taking precedence over guidelines, the monarch articles were titled in line with the guideline, and in direct contravention of the policy as you're now interpreting it (though it was pretty crazy to elevate a minor issue of editor-friendliness to one of three fundamental criteria, particularly when redirects work anyway).--Kotniski (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's reader-friendliness too; I'm glad to have James I of England at a predictable position for when I want to read about him; I don't expect ever to edit it more than a passing copyedit when I do read it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

PBS, "Einstein" is sufficiently precise, else it wouldn't redirect to "Albert Einstein". Therefore I can only assume you are saying that adopting a Firstname Lastname "makes linking easy", by rendering titles predictable; that is, you acknowledge that the decision to go with "Albert Einstein" instead of "Einstein" is largely or entirely grounded in the principle of consistency. If you do not think this, then please enlighten me as to what you do think: why do you think we all prefer the title "Albert Einstein" over the title "Einstein"? Please don't bother telling me all about the old wording; I don't care. Hesperian 05:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If Albert Einstein was always referred to as Einstein then the article on Wikipedia would be at Einstein, but in reality that he is not. The argument for moving Basia Trzetrzelewska to Basia was because it was the common name for that person, which if consistency had been followed would have remained at Basia Trzetrzelewska --PBS (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Barbara, presumably, but anyway, that's a case in the Madonna/Pele category. It's evidence that consistency is not always maximized, but no-one's disputing that. --Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gosh it is frustrating trying to get a straight answer out of you.

"If Albert Einstein was always referred to as Einstein then the article on Wikipedia would be at Einstein, but in reality that he is not." That's true. So what? In reality he is also not always referred to as "Albert Einstein". There is strong evidence that "Einstein" is more common than "Albert Einstein". So I'll ask yet again: why do you think we all prefer the title "Albert Einstein" over the more commonly used title "Einstein"?

The question was originally directed at Born2cycle. Between the two of you, do you think I might eventually get a answer, rather than a change of subject? Hesperian 05:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, I think people have answered your question... For example, PBS's comment shows that he thinks the reason we name the article on Albert Einstein with the name "Albert Einstein" is that more sources use his full name than just his last name. In other words "Albert Einstein" is more common than "Einstein". As an example of the opposite, we have an article on Cher, not "Cher Bono". Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

<--I think that this debate is becoming sterile and people are misunderstand each other, and therefore moving further apart rather than reaching a consensus. My point is--and have have not seen any others who have objected to the current wording making any other--that:

Similar articles generally should have similar titles. This may be true of a series of articles sharing a common topic or articles describing different topics but from a common field.

is open to misunderstanding and not giving enough weight to reliable sources. My proposed wording

Sometimes reliable sources do not indicate what is the most appropriate name for the title of an article in a general encyclopaedia because the name used in reliable sources are mentioned within a specific context. If it is necessary to add words to the name to create an unambiguous title, consider using additional wording as used in other similar articles.

is not throwing consistency out of the window, by trying to explain how it fits in with the use of reliable sources. I said when I first put it in that it was a first cut, but I think it is closer to how things are done than the current recently introduced wording.

Kotniski you keep citing Vicky and Betty as example of consistency, but those disputes also show that many editors, who would otherwise agree with "name, numeral, country" as a general rule, do not agree with it when they think it overrides usage in reliable sources. It can not be beyond us to reach agreement on wording which allows consistency to be considered, within the parameters of using reliable sources. As I have said it could for example be moved down to become section heading like Disambiguation, where it can be discussed in more detail so that the potential for misreading what it means can be mitigated. --PBS (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the introduction lists the criteria that people mostly take into account when deciding how to name articles - there are 5 or 6 of them, so clearly it's not saying (or shouldn't be saying) that one of them always takes precedence, or that people will always be able to agree on how to balance them. I don't object to further attempts to change the wording to make it more accurate, but I think we've seen enough evidence to show that consistency doesn't come into play only when we're deciding how to disambiguate titles - it's a highly pervasive aspiration, and omitting it from the list of criteria (or implying that it only applies to disambiguation) is going to mislead people coming to this page.--Kotniski (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your answer brings us any closer to wording that covers the issue. For example you gave the example below "Category:Land counties of Poland, where they all take the form "Foo County", as opposed to [various other formats]" and argue that English language sources are few and they are not consistent over all the articles. But in doing that you are agreeing that reliable English language sources, are a factor in deciding the names, how much you do not say. My problem is that the current wording "Similar articles generally should have similar titles. " leads to "occupation of ... by Nazi Germany" "Military of the UK" when the first ignores the bullet point "Concise" and the latter reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, of course I acknowledge that reliable English sources are an important factor, and I'm open (as I hope are others) to suggestions for wording that reflect that fact more clearly. But it seems to me untrue to claim that consistency plays only a minor role (multiple examples have shown otherwise) or that it can't promote a name rarely used in reliable sources over one that is. Your "problem" with "Military of the UK" and "Occupation of..." is the same as my problem with Victoria of the United Kingdom and Russian aircraft carrier Admiral whatever, and unfortunately we know how the community feels about these things. Try suggesting other wording though and see what people think.--Kotniski (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is not the same problem. One is people unilaterally stating that there should be consistency what I called "free range", while the others are part of guidelines. However as I have pointed out several times before, much of the consistency built into the guidelines was built in before we added reliable sources to this policy, and so much of it became redundant with that introduction as it was originally proposed to work around names like "Bloody Mary" which largely goes away with the use of reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But the guidelines are still there, weirdly "solving" non-problems like what to call Queen Victoria (a no-brainer regardless of whether you consider reliable sources). So it seems people do like consistency, although it's true that in some cases it's consistency with WP rules that motivates them more than any actual wider consistency.--Kotniski (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is arguing that consistency only comes into play for disambiguation. Obviously wording that says that is not ideal. However, the current wording is even more problematic, because it implies consistency applies in all kinds of contexts in which it does not. To be accurate about actual usage, we would have to be explain all of the relevant contexts, and it will not flow well. I'm actually fine with that, because it will make obvious the problem with giving "consistency" equal weight to the other principles. Those who favor the use of consistency even when doing so conflicts with the other truly general principles that are applicable in almost all WP article titles will of course not like that.

Anyway, like I said back when he wrote, I thought Arthur's suggestion a while ago was a a good step in the right direction. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Which suggestion was that? --PBS (talk)

No-one remembers now.. What do you think of the latest wording, where I replaced "generally should have" with "are often given" (similar titles)?--Kotniski (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Even more accurate would be something like, "Often, but usually only when the other principles don't indicate an obvious choice, similar articles are given similar titles". --Born2cycle (talk)

I'd be fine with that.--Kotniski (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Only if added to the other principles. Otherwise, it's just absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

When consistency applies

These are the contexts in which consistency applies in practice:

1. The manner in which articles within a group of similar articles are disambiguated.
2. The manner in which articles within a group of articles for which most if not all don't have an obvious single name are named (e.g., ships, royalty, "List of ...", etc.).
3. In some relatively rare cases, the manner in which articles within a group of articles are named, even though many if not most or even all of the articles in the group have obvious single names.

My personal objection to (3) is irrelevant because we're trying to document actual practice here. However, the current wording, "Similar articles should have similar titles" goes way beyond the scope of actual practice encompassed by these three categories of where consistency applies, primarily because it does not account for the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia for which seeking naming consistency with other similar articles is simply not a factor. This problem needs a remedy, or the entire consistency item needs to be removed. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Google "+monophyly -monophyletic": 234,000 hits.

Google "-monophyly +monophyletic": 750,000 hits.

Should we move monophyly to monophyletic? If not, why not?

Hesperian 12:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)