Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Naming convention for "subarticles" of histories, with time spans in parentheses

In a requested move discussion that was just closed, it was concluded that there is a well-established and widely used naming convention for "subarticles" that cover particular time spans within a larger history topic, using names like History of Foo (1753–1892), with the time span identified inside of parentheses similar to a disambiguation term. This is not about a "Foo" that existed only between 1753 and 1892 that needs to be distinguished from other Foos that existed during other periods of time, but rather about the period of the history of Foo from 1753 to 1892. The time spans look like disambiguation terms, but that's not what they are – instead, they are a fundamental part of the identification of the topic. This is not about a topic called "History of Foo", it is a timespan-based subset of the entire history of Foo. Examples include History of the United States (1776–1789), History of Poland (1918–1939), History of Canada (1960–1981), History of France (1900–present), History of Russia (1894–1917), History of Germany (1945–1990), and History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002). The RM discussion can be found at Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)#Requested move 16 June 2024. The suggestion to rename these to remove the parentheses, as in History of Foo from 1753 to 1892, was rejected. There is a substantial number of articles that use this convention, but I am not aware of anywhere that documents it as an accepted article naming convention on Wikipedia. Should this convention be described somewhere in WP:AT or in some other naming convention description? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This proposal seems sensible to me - maybe Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) would be a good place to include such guidance? ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps in WP:NCDURATION? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

See this diff, inserting "Articles that cover an interval of the history of a longer-duration topic are often entitled as their main overall topic suffixed with a parenthesized indication of the time period, such as History of Canada (1960–1981) and List of One Piece episodes (seasons 15–present)." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Possessive vs preposition

Are we cool with both of these title patterns?

• Welfare's effect on poverty
• Effects of alcohol on memory

The latter sounds more encyclopedic to me, but I'm reluctant to move the first page based on vibes alone. Jruderman (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Use of italics for translations of religious texts

Per WP:ITALICTITLE: Italics are not used for major religious works (the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud). Does this exception apply to translations of said works? Currently, the titles for translations of the Bible do not seem to be consistently italicized. Here is a sample of the titles of some translations, and at the end I include some translations of religious texts other than the Bible for additional reference:

Title	Italicized?	Notes
American Standard Version	N
King James Version	N
New International Version	N
Amplified Bible	Y
The Bible: An American Translation	Y
Beck's American Translation	N
Bible in Basic English	Y
Ferrar Fenton Bible	N	Official name "The Holy Bible in Modern English" is italicized in lead.
God's Word Translation	Y
The Hebrew Bible (Alter)	Y
International Standard Version	Y
Jerusalem Bible	Y
Lamsa Bible	N	Italicized in lead.
The Living Bible	N	A paraphrase, not a translation of the Bible.
The Living Torah and Nach	N	Individually, "The Living Torah" and "The Living Nach" are italicized in lead.
Matthew Bible	N	Italicized in lead.
The Message (Bible)	Y	A paraphrase, not a translation of the Bible.
Taverner's Bible	N	Official name "The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars by Rychard Taverner" is italicized in lead.
Statenvertaling	Y	Bible translation into Dutch.
NBV21	N	Bible translation into Dutch. I must say that I did create this article myself, but I have not received any comment on not italicizing the title.
Vulgate	N	Bible translation into Latin.
Luther Bible	N	Bible translation into German.
Targum	N	Bible translation into Aramaic.
The Koran Interpreted	Y	Quran translation
The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary	Y	Quran translation
The Study Quran	Y	Quran translation
The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition	Y	Talmud translation; Only "Steinsaltz Edition" is italicized in lead.
Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is	Y	Gita translation
God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita	Y	Gita translation

―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I don't know of any existing policy that directly addresses this question, but my instinct would be to adopt the following approach: if the title is the title of a specific work (e.g. for Bible in Basic English), it should be italicized. If the title is instead a descriptive title that simply indicates the edition of the text (e.g. King James Version, Ferrar Fenton Bible) or its historical context (e.g. Vulgate, Luther Bible), my instinct would be not to italicize it. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If there is no policy for this, then it might be prudent to begin an RFC. But for now, let us assume your description. What is meant by specific work, edition of the text, and historical context? As far as I am aware, the King James-, Fenton-, Vulgate-, and Luther Bibles are the names for specific works. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, a translation should only be italicized if the work is referred to with a lowercase "the" if not at the beginning of a sentence. For example, when the King James Version is mentioned in the middle of a sentence, then it is written "the King James Version", so then "King James Version" is not italicized. However, when The Study Quran is mentioned in a sentence, then it is written "The Study Quran", so then "The Study Quran" is italicized. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Another way to frame what I mean might be, "if the title was the one under which the work was published, that title should be italicized." To use the King James Version as an example: according to its article, the KJV was published under the title THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Teſtament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranſlated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Tranſlations diligently compared and reuiſed, by his Maiesties ſpeciall Cõmandement. The "King James Version" isn't the official title of the work, but a moniker assigned to it after the fact, and for that reason I don't believe it should be italicized. (For a similar case from another field, consider the Beatles' White Album: the article uses italics when stating the album's official title, The Beatles, but it doesn't italicize the "White Album" nickname.) This distinction - official titles used by a work's creators/publishers vs. unofficial descriptors that emerge from later scholarship or the general public - is what I would consider to be the main determining factor for whether a given title should be italicized.

Your suggestion about the capitalization vs. lowercasing of a preceding "the" is also a useful indicator, in my opinion, but I would argue that it's a side effect of the underlying official/unofficial distinction rather than a fully separate factor. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating. It appears to me that this is a clear guideline, but still I will need to edit many article titles so that it is applied consistently, which may incite further discussions. I must note that for albums it does not appear to be clear either, considering that for all self-titled Weezer albums, their respective monikers are italicized in the lead but not in the title.

―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Caret in article title

Does caret [^] can be use in titling an article or not? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 10:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There are two possible questions here. First: is it possible to use the caret in an article title? The answer here is yes; it's not one of the characters that the MediaWiki software prohibits from titles. However, the second question is: should a caret be used in an article title? The answer here is, basically, it depends. Generally, titles aim to describe their subject in the plainest English possible: that is to say, non-alphanumeric characters are generally avoided, and stylizations are generally removed (for instance, we use Toys "R" Us instead of Toys "Я" Us). For that reason, there's often not a compelling reason to use a caret in an article title. However, there are occasional exceptions; for instance, if the title of a work uses a caret, and that caret is used in the majority of independent sources discussing the work (see WP:TITLETM), it may be appropriate.

If there's a specific article where you'd like to use a caret in the title, let us know what it is and we can give more specific advice. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The article I want to create with caret is Ar^c, the debut extended play of ARrC, which like you said that it is used in the majority of independent sources. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 14:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you also take a look at this discussion I open first at Wikipedia:Help desk#Caret in article title? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 14:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Tiltes of works of art

Is there a guideline about article titles for foreign works of art: books, films, paintings, etc. Especially in the cases when there is no "official" or commonly used English translation or if there are several English translations. --Altenmann >talk 21:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The closest thing to a unified guideline about this topic would probably be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) (WP:NCUE), which includes sections on how to approach topics with competing English translations or no common English translation in the first place. However, NCUE is a more general titling guideline that is not about the titles of works specifically. For more topically focused guidance, your best bet is probably to look up the titling guideline for the relevant category of work and identify the most appropriate section therein. For instance, WP:NCBOOKS#Title translations and the following section address titling guidance for foreign books; WP:NCFILM#Non-English language films covers films; and MOS:ART#Article titles features a brief discussion on how to handle non-English names for works of visual art. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)