Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Multiplication sign

Should the use of the multiplication sign (×) in article titles be utterly avoided? Given that the guideline clearly points out to avoid the use of characters not found on a standard keyboard, I interpret that it includes the multiplication sign as well. However, and although I know about WP:OTHERCONTENT, I noticed this category with several articles that include the sign in their titles. My doubt about this arises from a discussion I started in the Pluto: Urasawa x Tezuka's talk page. Personally I would prefer to keep the sign, but I wanted to know more opinions on the matter.

P.S: I also have another question now with the Ed Sheeran-related articles that include the division symbol in the titles as well. Xexerss (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no practical problem with using a multiplication sign if there's a redirect that uses an ⟨x⟩ instead. Remsense ‥ 论 08:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this a valid disambig page?

An article I have watchlisted Eliza Smith has been turned into a disambig page, with the article that was there previously moved to Eliza Smith (writer). Added to the new disabig page are Eliza Kennedy Smith, Eliza Bland Smith Erskine Norton and Eliza Doyle Smith. All three of the 'non-Eliza Smith' articles have been around for a while with no need for a disambig page (particularly one that isn't Eliza Smith). Is this not a case where hatnotes would be preferable to a disambig page, given they have 'natural' disambiguators? (I ask this from a position of complete ignorance on disambig pages, which I rarely get involved with... - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The place to ask such questions is usually Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, but I can tell you right now that the answer you will get is that this is a perfectly fine disambiguation page. Any person with a given first name and last name is likely to be identifiable by that name, irrespective of whether a middle name (or maiden name) is interposed. If there is an argument that Eliza Smith (writer) is the primary topic of the page, then the disambiguation page can be moved to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title, but it seems unlikely that such a short article on a person prominent so many decades ago would be primary. BD2412 T 12:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's great - thanks very much. I don't think the writer is likely to be the primary (or at least, if she is, it'll be by a very narrow margin and I'd be surprised),but it's good to know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

How to disambiguate TV producers?

While looking through Category:American television producers, I noticed there is no consistency in how the articles are disambiguated parenthetically—compare, for example, Bill Anderson (producer), Robert Borden (TV producer), Jimmie Baker (television producer), and Nick Davis (television and movie producer). Would it make sense to standardize these parenthetical disambiguators, or is there existing guidance somewhere that I'm missing? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking per WP:PRECISION, (producer) should be sufficient, unless there's multiple producers of the same name, and extra precision is needed. —Bagumba (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles has an RfC

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

I'd like to hear from people who don't know much about Korea or Korean history, but are familiar with Wikipedia style as a whole. This is a pretty major topic that would affect thousands of articles.

The topic is on what romanization system to use for Korean history articles. This would affect the Korean naming conventions. seefooddiet (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove UE as a whole.

It makes no sense that anything that has a non-English name is translated in English. I think this should be revised considering that in Québec, we fought tooth and nail to protect our language, and now English Wikipedia mindlessly follow the English-language newspapers without ever considering what the majority of French-language newspapers says. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is written in English. We follow English-language usage. If you prefer to read Wikipedia in French, then the link is http://fr.wikipedia.org. 162 etc. (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

English or not, when the French name is the only official one, whether sources use another name is not important. Maybe I'm wrong when it comes to the PLQ, but there are plenty other examples where it's not the case. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

>whether sources use another name is not important

Well, it is. Per the policy, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources.)"

I seriously doubt that you'll find consensus to change that. 162 etc. (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

UE doesn't hold that titles should be universally translated to English, it only holds that titles should use the form that's most common in English-language RS. (In this respect, it basically extends the principles of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RSUE.) This often results in the adoption of translated titles, but also allows for moves in the other direction if sources support it: for instance, the article Seitō (magazine) used to be titled after the magazine's translated name Bluestockings, but moved to its current title by RM consensus because Seitō was more prevalent in English sourcing. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It makes no sense that anything that has a non-English name is translated in English. Then you should be pleased to learn your premise is mistaken: the guideline doesn't call for that (read it again: it says "should follow English-language usage", not "should translate into English"), and not everything that has a non-English name is translated to English here (though it may be transliterated): Der Spiegel (not "The Mirror"), Mainichi Shimbun (not "Daily Newspaper"), Haaretz (not "The Land"), Touche pas à mon poste ! (not "Don't touch my TV!"), Amores perros (not "Love's a Bitch"), Izvestia (not "News"), Livorno (not "Leghorn"), Mechelen (not "Mechlin"), etc. Even with respect to Quebec: we have Trois-Rivières, not "Three Rivers".

As far as I know, what's been fought for in Quebec is the primacy of French and the use of authentic French words when speaking and writing in French, not to dictate to users of English how to speak and write English when they are speaking and writing in English. In any event, this isn't Wikipedia for Quebec, it's English Wikipedia for the entire world.

Further, French Wikipedia has articles titled fr:Royaume-Uni and fr:États-Unis and fr:Californie, not "United Kingdom" and "United States" and "California". Why should English Wikipedia follow a different approach? Largoplazo (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would we consider what French-language newspapers say when we ARE WRITING IN ENGLISH? I don't tell you how to speak and write French, your attempt tell us how to speak and write English is monstrously offensive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

And to the list of examples, one could add Mein Kampf (not My Struggle), Cirque du Soleil (not Sun Circus), Pravda (not Truth), Germany (not Deutschland), and on and on. I can only agree strongly with Khajidha: your premise is mistaken, your argumentation is baseless, and your proposal has no chance. Feel free to raise it again, though, after you have fixed the titles of the following articles at French Wikipedia so they all have the proper English titles: Californie, Irlande, Le Cap, Chambre des lords, Parc national de Yellowstone, and La Nouvelle-Orléans. Et passez une très bonne journée ! Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIALNAME is also pertinent here, since part of the basis of the OP's idea seems to be that because the organization's official name is English, en.WP has to write it that way regardless what the preponderance of English-language sources are doing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarification regarding language of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY

Hello,

I am writing to inquire about the phrasing ...the subject area... in the Recognizability description. Does ...subject area... refer to the general topic area of an article's content or specifically the subject matter of the article in question? I ask because I have been participating in multiple WP:RM discussions, especially in the context of WP:NCROY. In addition, how ...subject area... is interpreted can affect my !vote rationale.

Example for those confused about my inquiry

To illustrate my point, consider the example of the article title for Emperor Alexander III of Russia. If ...subject area... is defined to be European history broadly speaking (i.e. a general topic area for the emperor), I would argue that Alexander III of Russia meets WP:RECOGNIZABILITY as is because he does not have the name recognition of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, or even his son Nicholas II to go by just a cognomen or a regnal number without the "of Russia" qualifier. In contrast, if ...subject area... is defined to be Emperor Alexander III of Russia (i.e. specifically the emperor himself), I would argue that Alexander III of Russia meets WP:RECOGNIZABILITY by truncating the article title to Alexander III because as someone familiar with the Russian ruler, I do not need the article title to tell me he is affiliated with Russia.

Please note that I am not asking this to rehash or pre-empt a move request involving WP:NCROY (In any case, I am skeptical that the Russian emperor is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Alexander III because Alexander the Great a Scottish king had the same regnal name and number). I am asking this because I have never received an explicit clarification on this matter in the various RMs I have participated in.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you,

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC), last edited 14:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

N

Virtually nobody remembers Alexander the Great's regnal number, so he is obviously not a candidate for the primary topic.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for noting this. I admit that I thought about that when I was writing my query, but I also believed that Alexander the Great could still be the primary topic for Alexander III on technical grounds. I probably should have used Alexander III of Scotland, who is commonly known by that regnal number, to illustrate my point. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Taking the revised version of the OP's scenario, of "Alexander III" in particular: in English-language sources, the Scottish monarch still only has only a bit more than half as much RS coverage [1] as the Russian one [2]. Whether 12K sources for the Scot and 20K for the Russian firmly establishes the latter as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC might be open to some disputation (which would not be the case if it were something like 3K to 175K split). But the Scottish one clearly is not primary, and he would probably be the leading contender against the Russian by a wide margin. To answer the OP's more general question, "subject area" in this sense means heads of state and comparable figures (such as Popes and a few other people usually known by "Foobar IV" regnal-style numbering, perhaps inclusive of major non-states like duchies in some cases). It doesn't mean anything narrower that's dependent on the specific article content and context (like being Russian or from a particular era).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:EVE Energy § Article title

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:EVE Energy § Article title. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on the relationship between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT

For any proposed article title determined by the application of WP:CRITERIA the proposed title should nonetheless comply with WP:TITLEFORMAT (ie WP:TITLEFORMAT has primacy over WP:CRITERIA). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

For simplicity, comments can be made as a Yes or No to the RfC proposition.

Background

At WP:TITLEFORMAT, it is stated: The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles; consistency on these helps avoid duplicate articles [emphasis added].

The meaning of any particular part of a policy should be construed within the fuller context and not in isolation. The question considers whether the two sections exist in harmony with each other or whether the application of any of the five criteria can be construed to over-ride any of the matters detailed in WP:TITLEFORMAT.

This RfC does not propose a change to the wording of this policy nor does it preclude a change. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: Just as there are five principles listed at WP:CRITERIA, there are eleven matters (sections) to WP:TITLEFORMAT. The proposition deals with the relationship between WP:CRITERIA (as a whole) and WP:TITLEFORMAT (as a whole). 08:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Intent The intent of this RfC is to determine what the policy is actually telling us as written (how it should reasonably be construed) as opposed to what editors think the policy should be telling us. If there is a disjunction between the two, then an amendment to the policy is indicated but that would be another issue.

Pinging editors that have already commented: WhatamIdoing, Thryduulf, Voorts, SnowFire, Adumbrativus, Extraordinary Writ, Novem Linguae and Mdewman6. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Yes (as proposer) The wording at the intro to TITLEFORMAT states the considerations detailed therein are not covered by the five principles [emphasis added] - matters raised therein fall outside the scope of CRITERIA. The matters identified at TITLEFORMAT mainly exist for technical reasons that should not be over-ridden (noting that it is rare to use must not on WP). Reading the subject guidance in the full context of this policy, the proposition represents both the spirit and intent and the letter of the policy. Accepting the proposition asserts a harmony between the two individual sections. Rejecting the proposition creates tension and disharmony within the policy. That would assume that the drafters of the policy lacked the perception to see such a conflict of ideas and/or, that such a conflict should exist. By Occam's razor (or at least its corollary) the reasonable (simplest) view is that the intention is one of harmony between the two sections. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

PS Many of the eleven matters identified at TITLEFORMAT use unambiguous emphatic language such as do not or use rather than should use. Such language serves to tell us that these matters are not optional. They are definitely not informing us on how to balance the five criteria. These are things that a proposed title cannot violate. Such language quite clearly establishes the relationship with CRITERIA and the primacy of the matters at TITLEFORMAT collectively. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• For context, this stems from this discussion (about this RM), where I was asked as closer to disregard !votes that invoked consistency. I declined to do so since I feel consistency is a policy consideration (WP:CONSISTENT; WP:CRITERIA) that editors are allowed to balance against other factors, but if editors think that style guidelines like MOS:CAPS should always take precedence, I'm happy to be recalibrated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, it is not that MOS:CAPS takes precedence (at least not directly). It is that WP:LOWERCASE is part of WP:TITLEFORMAT. The weight given to MOS:CAPS comes from within WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• No WP:TITLEFORMAT should not have primacy over WP:CRITERIA; both are part of the WP:AT policy and should carry equal weight. WP:TITLEFORMAT addresses issues not directly addressed by WP:CRITERIA, in other words, it informs how to balance and invoke the 5 criteria, but is not something that the criteria can 'violate' or not. In the case of that RM, the fundamental question is whether "battle" is part of the proper noun or not, which essentially is a WP:COMMONNAME question- how do reliable sources normally write it. Thus, we have MOS:CAPS and, more specifically, MOS:MILCAPS, which are WP:GUIDELINES, which are specific invocations of a combination of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:LOWERCASE, which are both WP:POLICY. I don't think WP:CONSISTENT arguments should be completely discounted, but it's up to the RM participants and the closer to determine how much weight they carry. WP:CONSISTENT states consistency should be the goal to the extent it is practical and WP:TITLECON (an essay) discusses consistency arguments when other considerations are equal so it seems clear consistency should not be the only consideration. Personally, I think most battles significant enough to be known as "battle of x", "battle" is clearly part of the proper noun (the event usually being more important than where it occurred), but we must follow reliable sources. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. Both policy sections include various factors that are used to determine an appropriate title on a case by case basis. In an RM discussion, any relevant factors should be balanced and weighed against one another to reach consensus. I don't see evidence of disharmony or major inconsistency requiring a massive change to policy. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC does not propose a change to policy. It is a question of how the spirit and intent and the letter of two different parts of the policy, as they exist, should be reasonably construed. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's splitting hairs. If there's only one way of reasonaly construing a policy, then that construction becomes the policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Reading CRITERIA and the supporting sections addressing the five principles (within the full context of the policy), it is essentially telling us that a proposed title is determined by weighing each principle and that each principle need not be given equal weight in a particular case. However, TITLEFORMAT tells us that the matters therein are questions not covered by the five principles [emphasis added] - ie they are outside the scope of CRITERIA and the five principles. The matters at TITLEFORMAT are clearly quite separate from CRITERIA. The eleven matters at TITLEFORMAT tell us to do a certain thing, to not do a certain thing or that certain things might be done in narrowly construed circumstances. Compared with CRITERIA (and the five sections that explain the individual principles) TITLEFORMAT uses emphatic language. Reading the individual sections in the fuller context of the whole policy, TITLEFORMAT is essentially telling us to discard or modify a proposed title if it does not conform to any of the eleven matters therein. At no point does it suggest that any of the five principles might cover any of the matters at TITLEFORMAT. Consequently, it is not reasonable to posture that any of the five principles, either individually or in combination, might over-ride or supplant any of the matters at TITLEFORMAT - especially those which are made emphatically without exception.

  Yes, there is only one way that a rule, law or policy should be reasonably construed if it is robustly constructed - eg without ambiguity. But that is not always the case. Consequently, in the real world, rules and laws are often tested to determine how they should be reasonably construed. I make a reasoned case that the letter of the policy is that, matters at TITLEFORMAT have primacy over CRITERIA. In consequence there is harmony between the two sections internally and a harmony between WP:AT and other associated P&G. The internal and external harmony evidences that construing the relationship between the two sections this way represents not only the letter of the policy but the spirit and intent of the policy. Asserting otherwise creates tension, ambiguity, inconsistency and disharmony between the two sections and related P&G where none exists otherwise. Is there a reasoned argument that the alternative accurately represents the letter of the policy and the spirit and intent or is it just an opinion that I don't like it, then it should be made.

  Yes, [I]n an RM discussion, any relevant factors should be balanced and weighed against one another. However, arguing an internal contradiction within a policy where none reasonably exists would be illogical and flatly contradict the policy. Accordingly, it should be discarded. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not statutes. They are not written by a single body at a single point of time; there's no legislative drafters or style guide; and the overriding concerns are not precision, consistency, or rule of law. Rather, they are written by several editors—many with opposing viewpoints—over the course of decades according to a process that values consensus, with the recognition that ignore all rules is an overriding principle. Your interpretation of AT as written might be correct, but it's beside the point. In current practice, RM discussions generally involve editors making arguments based on COMMONNAME, CRITERIA, TITLEFORMAT, or any of the various naming conventions, and then weighing between those arguments. One discussion might conclude with a consensus that consistency is more important than concision, while another might result in using a common name instead of a precise title. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  If there's only one way of reasonaly construing a policy, then that construction becomes the policy. We can only construe a policy base on what is written. The purpose and intent of this RfC is to determine how the relationship between CRITERIA and TITLEFORMAT should be construed based on what is written within the fuller context of the policy. This is exactly the point. Proposing a title (be it the initial title or at an RM) is about balancing the five criteria for any particular case. That is what the policy is telling us and it is not disputed. But this is not the question posed by the RfC nor the point of the RfC. If the policy is telling us to comply with TITLEFORMAT, then that is what we do too. The intent of the RfC is not to determine what editors think the policy should say but what it actually says. If it doesn't say what the community think it should say, then it is ""broke" and should be fixed. However, that would be another matter since it is not the intent of this RfC to change the policy. Furthermore, IAR is not a get out of jail free card to be exercised whenever one just doesn't like the rules. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a lawyer. I love getting in the weeds and arguing about the meaning of the law. But that's not how Wikipedia interprets or creates rules. Editors operate based on consensus, not legalistic readings of P&Gs. Please review WP:RAP and WP:PPP. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• No. Voorts puts it well. Both sections contain factors that need to be considered in the context of an individual discussion and neither can be correctly stated as stronger than the other in all cases. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• This RFC could use some examples placed prominently towards the top somewhere. I read it twice and do not understand it. If I spent another 5 minutes reading the linked policies I could probably puzzle it out, but including that information here would be helpful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae, it is a question of whether CRITERIA (or any particular principle therein) would over-ride any (one or more) of the eleven matters at TITLEFORMAT, noting that for many of these matters the language used is emphatic rather than optional. My response to Voorts might better explain the issue. I will give some examples if this helps. Some of these are related/analogous to article title discussions that have occurred.

  Would a proposed title that uses title case over-ride LOWERCASE on the basis that article titles using title case are more RECOGNISABLE or more NATURAL than article titles written in sentence case?

  Would a proposed title of #tag over-ride WP:TSC on the basis of recognisability/COMMONNAME?

  Would a series of sub-articles on a topic in a format similar to "Azerbaijan/Transport" (though using some character other than "/") on the basis of CONSISTENT, NATURAL or CONCISE over-ride Do not create subsidiary articles?

  Would one have a title "The Department of Foo", over-riding WP:DEFINITE on the basis of CONSISTENT and COMMONNAME (we always see "the Department of Foo" in sources) or "Wild horses", using a similar argument to over-ride WP:SINGULAR.

  Would we have "X Plate" for the names of individual tectonic plates citing CONSISTENT because all WP articles use "X Plate" over-riding LOWERCASE even though none of the individual plate names are consistently capped in sources. Or do we change all of these to lowercase on the basis of CONSISTENT because the majority of cases are consistently not capitalised in sources?

  Would CONCISE over-ride WP:TSC to use "¿" for an article about the inverted question mark?

  Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, Voorts is correct. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. If any one guideline should have precedence, it's WP:COMMONNAME, which is the titling equivalent of how Wikipedia handles everything else (e.g. WP:DUEWEIGHT for when sources disagree on more factual matters). Perhaps WP:NPOVNAME, too (the titling equivalent of WP:NPOV). (Not seriously mentioning these as counterproposals, just an "IMO" on priority.)
  • Part 2: I don't want to sidetrack, but I also disagree that this is even applicable to the sample RM that caused this (which I did not participate in). Suppose an editor performs a, for purpose of discussion, indisputably incorrect ngrams analysis. They screwed something up, made a typo, who knows. But the results of that faulty ngram analysis indicate some rule in TITLEFORMAT should predominate. But... it doesn't matter, because garbage in, garbage out, so the would-be TITLEFORMAT guidance doesn't even really apply. Okay, the case of a clear error isn't common, but what's more common is a contested ngram analysis. Cinderella said in that RM and in others that ngrams can overstate the rate of capitalization, but a lot of people disagree and believe that ngrams can understate the rate of capitalization by mixing in normal uses of the term. Which side is "right" isn't important here, but the point is, if the raw evidence is contested, a closer shouldn't just close "because (some policy in TITLEFORMAT) says so". There's really two claims afoot here, one of raw evidence and one of how to apply policy, and the first is often harder to parse! I've seen RMs close on arguments that are (IMO) inarguably at variance with the facts on the ground, and I'm sure that others think the same in reverse of me. Point is, it's not even clear that this proposed change does what it's implied to do, and if it does it would lead to absurdities like my example before of a faulty analysis somehow prevailing because it invoked the "right" policy on the wrong grounds. SnowFire (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    SnowFire, firstly, there is no change to WP:AT proposed here at all. The question is about how the existing letter and spirit and intent of the relationship between CRITERIA and TITLEFORMAT should be (correctly) construed. Secondly, while the discussion with Extraordinary Writ may have led to this RfC (one followed the other), the RM being discussed there was not the only matter leading to this RM. In that RM it was argued that the CONSISTENT over-rode LOWERCASE - not because of source evidence that the title should be lowercase but because of an unsubstantiated claim that of a convention to use alternative capitalisation regardless of what sources did for a particular case. While CONSISTENT exists, if a cited policy exists it must also be reasonably construed if it is to be given any weight. This RM has nothing to do with the evidence presented at that or any other RM. But addressing your point without getting sidetracked, it is the role of commenting editors to present appropriate evidence to support their case and for editors opposing that case to interrogate such evidence to confirm it does evidence what it is purported to (noting that capitalisation is essentially a statistical question that requires a polling of sources to determine the proportion of capitalisation in prose). This RM is not just about the relationship of LOWERCASE to any one or more of the principles at CRITERIA. It addresses the relationship of CRITERIA to all of the matters covered by TITLEFORMAT, where I have seen discussions relating to LOWERCASE, SINGULAR, DEFINITE, subsidiary articles, persons names, TCS and trademarks that have prompted this. That is the reasons why this RfC is about the relationship between CRITERIA and TITLEFORMAT rather than CRITERIA and LOWECASE. Perhaps I might put this in perspective for you and link to your comment (response to me) here, even though it is about the relationship between CONSISTENT and LOWERCASE. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Don't want to talk too much about a specific RM rather than the overall change, but if I had !voted in that RM, then yes, I would have placed very little weight on WP:CONSISTENT. And I agree with you that the community should take CONSISTENT less seriously. But I also think that this is a matter already mostly handled fine by our consensus process. If other editors in good standing want to prioritize CONSISTENT in areas I disagree, that's their right - the MOS is inherently suggestions rather than mandated right or wrong things, as it has to be because language changes over time.

    The larger issue for me is the ngrams one - I'm thinking of stuff like the "Eurasian P/plate" RM where there was just a failure to agree on reality, and the closer bought the ngrams argument over the "here's what geologists who actually work in the field say" argument (which was a crazy thing to dismiss as "vibes"!). If you say that this isn't the issue you're raising here, fine, I could be persuaded to abstain, but I think that was the core of the original Battle of Panipat discussion, common name as decided by ngram analysis. If hypothetically it was indisputable there was completely no common name at all and just wild variance, then sure, lowercase b, and if hypothetically it was indisputable the > X% Battle usage threshold was met (where X varies by editor), then clearly it should be capital B. But as mentioned above, it is rare for the matter to be indisputable! So fiddling with which policy "wins" should have had little effect in my book, as the question was truly one of COMMONNAME, and that is clearly one where people just greatly disagree. (i.e. that we're just talking about a different reason to not move, that of "didn't make a convincing enough COMMONNAME case.") SnowFire (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Picking ngrams over reliable sources is just incorrect. COMMONNAME itself says we should follow the most reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    I couldn't agree more, but, unfortunately, that's not always how move discussions have gone in the past. I strongly believe the usage in relevant reliable sources should trump the usage of ngrams, which take into account a large swath of sources that may be unfamiliar with proper usage and capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Ngrams are generally the gold standard for assessing common name because unlike your search for "relevant reliable sources", which is an undefined and imprecise definition, they provide an objective and unbiased look at a wide variety of sources with a clear measure that isn't defined by anyone on Wikipedia, not to mention analysis by year. And book sources are usually presumed to be at the upper echelons of reliability too. Far too many RMs use cherry-picked lists of sources, many of which are part of the WP:OFFICIALNAMES phallacy and are often just designed to support whatever viewpoint the RM nominator wants to convey.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Ngrams can be useful when it is clear that a single phrase refers to only a single topic and is used only in a single context. However when a single phrase has refers to multiple topics and/or is used in multiple context then it is not an accurate representation of any of them. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

    This is exactly my point of view, and it's why every title with a common noun in it, whether a proper name or not, seemingly ends up being downcased. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Another case where an ngrams argument was simply incorrect was a situation where there were two topics with the same name, one was a proper noun and the other a common noun (it was an article about a geographically named regional railway line in England but I forget which one). One participant did not understand that there were two distinct topics - a specific individual railway line (the subject of the article) and railway lines in general in the same place - and kept insisting the ngrams showed that it wasn't a proper noun. However in reality the ngrams did not (and could not) distinguish between the two. There needs to be flexibility to interpret the context of the specific discussion and that is lacking from this proposal Thryduulf (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, it's the other way around. Recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency are more important than things like "Use singular form" and "Avoid definite and indefinite articles" and "Do not enclose titles in quotes". It should usually be possible to comply with all of these, but I pick the first set of principles over the little details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• No, voorts is correct that our goal is not applying textualist analysis to whether WP:TITLEFORMAT is making those eleven points secondary to the five points of WP:CRITERIA or the superseding formatting guidelines. Any of these sixteen concepts can be the means to decide a requested move. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• No per WhatamIdoing. Ajpolino (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. WP:COMMONNAME is by far the most important thing to consider for titles (and yes, that often means looking at ngrams as well as other evidence). Where there's a clear common name, the policy and longstanding practice mean we rarely fail to use that - even where consistency might not be met. If and only if the common name is unclear, then we invoke the five criteria directly and try to reach a consensus on which title fits them best. If after all that there's still a lack of clarity, then I'd invoke TITLEFORMAT at that point, but not any earlier.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Cinderella157's analysis is correct, and many of the TITLEFORMAT points are non-optional, while all of the criteria are a prioritization juggling game of various preferences, any of which can be sacrificed when outweighed by other considerations, while much of TITLEFORMAT cannot. To the extent anything in TITLEFORMAT is actually optional, the solution is to separate its material into two lists, of mandatory versus conditional matters. The "No" commenters here all appear to be missing the point, and seem to have been triggered into strange defensive contortions by wording like "supersede" or "override".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  The only truly non-optional point under TITLEFORMAT is TSC because that's a technical, rather than style, issue. At least four of the TITLEFORMAT points have exceptions—including singular form, don't use abbreviations, use nouns, and trademarked names—so they are not required in all circumstances. Several of them don't really ever come into play in RMs, like use sentence case, subsidiary articles, don't use quotation marks, and italics, largely because nobody could credibly argue against those. For example, I can't think of a circumstance where we wouldn't italicize a film or book page title. The follow reliable sources point is just an amalgam of several of the CRITERIA. Regarding your analysis of the no !votes: the RfC is expressly asking us whether a certain part of a policy should supersede another. Indeed, Cinderella157 has used the phrase "over-ride" 8 times in this discussion so far. It's not a "strange defensive contortion[]" to respond to those points. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  The constant flood of over-capitalization RMs of multi-word titles tells us that "use sentence case" is actually quite important; while no one proposes "Use title case!", what they want effectively amounts to that, so this line-item in the policy is an additional shield against their over-stylization whims (though lack of consistent support in independent RS is more often the main one, whether it be a MOS:CAPS or MOS:TM or MOS:SIGCAPS or MOS:DOCTCAPS or MOS:SPORTCAPS question). The point about quotation marks actually does come up, though rarely (mostly with regard to phrases from conventional quotations or from Internet memes, and exceptionally with regard to titles of works that have internal, or are surrounded by, quotation marks of their own, like some famous David Bowie material). Italics: we have a long-term, persistent contingent who hate that WP house style is to put all major works in italics regardless of medium (they want to deny this style to electronic publications). I have to rather amusedly note that your engaging in another defensive contortion, handwring over just how many times the proponent used a term that triggered your defensive reaction, has rather the opposite of your intended effect of disproving my point.

  The question here is quite simple: which section of the policy has precedence when there's a perception of conflict beteen them? The answer has to be TITLEFORMAT because making it secondary would regularly (not strangely exceptionally, when sources really seem to dictate it) produce inconsistent titles even within the same category of subjects, yet CRITERIA includes CONSISTENT. That is, CRITERIA is effectively telling us, in CONSISENT, that it is secondary to TITLEFORMAT.

  A potential way around the problem, or perceived problem, here would be to merge these sections one way or another, so that all the actual title criteria we employ, including formatting ones, are in one place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please stop calling the no !votes defensive contortions. You said no !votes were using words like "override"; I was pointing out that it was Cinderella using that word. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Except I said nothing like that at all, but quite the opposite, namely that Cinderella157 did in fact use these terms and then you and various other "No" !voters are reflexively and emotionally reacting to what they could mean in some other context instead of analyzing their actual meaning and implications in this context. So, your bent-out-of-shape ranting at me here really has no basis. You either do not understand in any way the argument I am making, or are striking the pose that you don't understand, because you don't like it but can't seem mount a sensible counter-argument. Regardless, I predict no utility in me going round in circles with you any further. This kind of argument to emotion stuff is just pointless and anti-consensus. Instead of responding to anything substantive I said, you're retreated to an "offended" posture, in which venty bluster is used as a hand-wave to dodge every single element of the substance, and that bluster is based on blatantly misreading everything I wrote just so you can manufacture an "enemy". Straw-man nonsense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• No The point at issue is an attempt to lower-case an article title. WP:NOTLAW states that "...the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice ... Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures". We had a consensus-based discussion and that establishes the accepted practice. If there then seems to be inconsistency in the rules then the rules should be loosened, not tightened, so as to accommodate the accepted practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, the point at issue is not an attempt to lowercase an article title. It was prompted by quite a number of discussions where the issue was not just LOWERCASE but other matters at TITLEFORMAT v CRITERIA. The intent of this RfC is to determine what the policy is actually telling us as written (how it should reasonably be construed) as opposed to what editors think the policy should be telling us. This is stated in the Background section. It continues: If there is a disjunction between the two, then an amendment to the policy is indicated but that would be another issue. An inconsistency or a disjunction have the same result: if there is something wrong with how the policy is written then it needs to be amended and improved. It is unfortunate that responses here are more concerned with defending what people think the policy says than considering whether that is what it is saying in both the letter and the spirit and intent represented by consistency with other P&G. WP:RMCI states: Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. There is a difference in CONLEVEL between P&G and an RM. Arguments at an RM are to be assigned weight giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. If there is an inconsistency in P&G in what it says or what it might be thought to say, then this should be remedied else it is a case of garbage in, garbage out. An unwritten principle of WP is continuous improvement. Even Voots grudgingly acknowledges I might be right. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

We are told above that For context, this stems from this discussion (about this RM). I did not participate in that discussion and am here as a member of the wider community following the listing at WP:CENT. Insofar as there's a wider issue, it's that this policy page is so huge (about 5,000 words) that it contains numerous competing considerations. How these should be balanced and used has to be decided on a case-by-case basis and that's what the RM discussion did. There isn't a formal order of precedence and so the answer is still No. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• No per all of the reasoning above (nomination request to simply say 'Yes' or 'No', so no, of course not). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. To draw an analogy to broader Wikipedia governance—if the CRITERIA are the five pillars of titling, TITLEFORMAT is its MOS. In that sense, while we should follow TITLEFORMAT as much as is practical, it's nevertheless still possible for an argument to achieve consensus that a given article's title should diverge from TITLEFORMAT's norms in order to serve the overarching principles behind the titling process. Indeed, many of TITLEFORMAT's sections essentially enshrine this line of thinking outright, whether by noting standard exceptions (WP:SINGULAR, WP:DEFINITE, WP:NOUN) or directing us to follow the usage by RS (WP:TITLETM or the guidance on initials). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• No per Voorts, Andrew, SnowFire and others. They make the point much better than I could. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)