Talk:Factfulness

Requested move 11 September 2018

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

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded  with them hundreds  05:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Factfulness → Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think – WP:SUBTITLE is just a guideline, not a policy. Per WP:COMMONNAME, seems original name is a common name Hhkohh (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Hhkohh (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support/Restore how many of these TRs did the IP request? (Frayae moved page Talk:Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think to Talk:Factfulness without leaving a redirect: Requested by 142.160.89.97 at WP:RM/TR: Per WP:SUBTITLE. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral, just a typology nitpick: instead of those double hyphens, use a dash of some kind. No such user (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Another case of the IP editor seeking to undertake a controversial move without discussion after misinterpreting the spirit of WP:SUBTITLE. The original title was more unambiguous and also the WP:COMMONNAME. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see no issue with the initial requested move, and it abides by the given guideline. Seems to be a case of editors not liking the IP editor, based only on the facts that they are solely an IP and that they are abiding by guidelines. --  Alex TW 04:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP is not "abiding by the guideline" in my view, with respect I think you are misinterpreting it. Has this comment "case of editors not liking the IP editor" been duplicated on every one of these RMs? Plus this RM is starting from the wrong end. The long title is the stable title. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - per nom. That guideline is based on false assumptions that all media does that, which in fact they do not. Also, please note that the name was changed to the shorter version without discussion so in case of a no-consensus the title should be restored to the former name. --Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


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

All content gone
I wonder what happened. I started with a bare skeleton of content from the actual book and concept, hoping that some kind soul might have time to improve on it while I was having a cancer operation. Now all content from the book is gone, replaced by irrelevant comments from reviewers whom I suspect may not even have read the book. It looks "nicer", but is devoid of actual content about what the book is about now. This can hardly be encyclopedic. Since I received no direct notification about this change, I am disinclined to continue with this review. If this had been a single incidence I might have let this go, but it is not. Surely content matters more than style, does it not? Star Lord -   星爵 (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Name inflation hazard
I find this name ridiculously long for a page title that hardly needs this level of specificity to rise above any possible confound.

This is a recent trend in publication, as publishers have now discovered that excessively long names are relatively resistant to shortening, usually appear in prominent places in web pages, and thus drive more Google juice.

We're only encouraging this destructive trend by bequeathing this monstrosity the status of "stable name".

This title is already 75% of the way home in becoming a run-on sentence unto itself.

I'd even prefer Factfulness (2018 book) over this monstrosity of a page title, and I say that with the greatest personal reverence to Hans Rosling I could possibly have. &mdash; MaxEnt 18:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticisms
I moved the section about Berggren's criticisms to its own criticism section as it shouldn't be part of the book's summary. I also expanded his criticisms. Anyone have any more sources and criticisms to make this section more robust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarletLemon (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2024

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that the term "factfulness" is a neologism that is not held by topics other than the book, and thus that there is nothing standing in the way of this topic being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for. Further, participants widely commented on the extreme length of the existing title, indicating that the proposed title would be preferable under WP:CONCISE. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You Think → Factfulness – As already emphasized above, the title of this article is excessively long. The article is the primary (and only) topic for 'Factfulness'. The subtitle disambiguator is unnecessary and contradicts the guidance at WP:SUBTITLE and WP:CONCISE. I am not sure why the original discussion attempted to devalue these guidances. The 2018 RM was very flawed given the entire discussion revolved around citing WP:COMMONNAME without providing basic evidence unto that assertion. That discussion was essentially only initiated to undo a controversial move by an IP editor, which seemingly served as credibility for the move but distracted from the nominator's actual rationale (or lack thereof). One user described the current title as unambiguous, which is interesting considering 'Factfulness' is a neologism which exclusively refers to this book. The discussion concluded with a complaint regarding false assumptions, which was ironic given the stated rationale was readily accepted as true without proof (aka an assumption). I realize that I have belabored the point, but I do not believe we should accept for users to assert (without proof) that an extended, 95-character-long version of a title for which there is no other topic is the more commonly recognized name.Investigating its usage in the majority of reliable English-language publications, we can find no shortage of the title referred to as simply Factfulness. Which is not to say the subtitle is never published, but it is no outweighing mountain. There is no prevalent usage that determines Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You Think to be the common name. Taking all of this into consideration, this article (a singular topic requiring no disambiguation) should be moved back to the book's more commonly recognized title proper. It precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable. Οἶδα (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose - While not a word, "factfulness" seems like it could plausibly refer to other subjects either now or in the future, which would result in some pretty clear WP:ASTONISH imo. As someone stated in the last discussion, the extended title is the stable and clear title. The subtitle is very long, but I don't believe that alone justifies the name. Although, maybe "Factfulness (Book)" would a good compromise. Garnet Moss (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Factfulness", by itself, is a stable and clear title by virtue of being unambiguous. I am not sure why you are invoking the future. Do you have a crystal ball? Whether or not it "seems" to you that 'Factfulness' refers to another subject–perhaps in the future–is frankly irrelevant. Οἶδα (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. It's very unusual for the article title for a book to include the full subtitle, and there is no article presently at Factfulness. I don't think we need to worry about maybe-future WP:ASTONISH; we can handle that in the future if it happens. -- asilvering (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The subtitle is verbose and there is nothing ambiguous or imprecise about Factfulness. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – There is no need to include the lengthy title when the title proper is unambiguous. Graham (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)