Template talk:Correct title

Correct usage
For correct usage of this template, see Naming conventions (technical restrictions). -- Netoholic 15:09, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The text to add to the top of the page is: where Correct title should be replaced with the correct title. --Angr/comhrá 07:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories
Use   for incorrectly-titled categories.

What is the point?
What is the point of advertising Wikipedia's deficiencies so prominently? This message would be far more useful as a comment than as a banner heading. - SimonP 14:11, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * So people don't think the article was created with the wrong name, and also so they don't try to move it. ··gracefool |&#9786; 21:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with letting them try to move it and then getting the error message when they try? At most this template should be on the talk page or commented out in the article. We are making this encyclopedia for readers not editors. - SimonP 21:54, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * As a reader, I appreciate seeing a message explaining what the title should be. I wouldn't object to the wording being changed.  &mdash;AlanBarrett 22:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re more useful as a comment: If a template expands to a comment, then the comment will not be visible to anybody (except people who edit the template itself). When people edit a page that uses the template, they will just see. When people view that page, they will see nothing at all. This is indistinguishable from the case where the template is defined as being completely blank (unless you edit the template definition itself, where the comment will be visible), and doesn't seem useful to me. &mdash;AlanBarrett 22:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should have though of that. The solution is thus either not to use a template at all, use a subst:template, or move the template to the talk page. My ideal would be to move it to the talk page. - SimonP 22:20, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep it where readers can see it, but it should look more like a real title. I have just made a change that I hope will be helpful.  &mdash;AlanBarrett 23:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Better, but I still think this is too ugly a kludge to use until a developer can introduce a method of suppressing the real titles. - SimonP 23:18, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alan, I'm happy with that. ··gracefool |&#9786; 23:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't see the extra title. Bad idea, is confusing and intrusive. Not to mention the fact that it breaks W3C HTML specs by having two  s ··gracefool |&#9786; 11:38, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I dunno. It's a nice idea, but I think it adds a confusing element to the page and steals a lot of real estate on the printed page. Additionall, when I make pagename links, I copy and paste the title bar frequently. If an editor slightly scrolls down or doesn't notice, they might do the same, but copy the wrong title. It's close, but needs some work. -- Netoholic 04:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't really like this "fake title" version. The two titles are a little confusing... the old version explaining why the title was wrong was enough.   &mdash; Kate | Talk 08:11, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Support for this template

 * I support this template because it can be used to create hundred of redirects as soon as en: changes from Latin-1 to UTF-8. Gangleri | [ Th] | T 18:14, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
 * I support this template because I think that pointing out a slight deficiency in the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia runs on is an acceptable compromise to avoid people gaining more doubt for the accuracy of Wikipedia due to what they perceive to be an inaccuracy on the part of the authors. Keep in mind that most Wikipedia users will not bother to try and correct a problem in the title (and then receive the proposed error message by SimonP (read above), and will simply be unsatisfied with the quality of the encyclopaedia if they even notice the wrong title in the first place.  s p l i n t a x  (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What are the technical restrictions really?
In an unrelated question are all of the page that have this template really in need of it? According to Naming conventions (technical restrictions) "*", "$", and "@" are permissible characters. Can M A S H thus be moved to M*A*S*H, Deal dollar store to Deal$, and SETI at home to SETI@home? - SimonP 23:18, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know. You could try it and see.  It's quite possible that the documentation doesn't match the true state of the software.  This part of the discussion should probably be taken to Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (technical restrictions).  &mdash;AlanBarrett 15:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I moved Deal dollar store to Deal$ and the wiki seems not to have collapsed. - SimonP 15:54, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

As far I am I aware this is not a technical limitation, but a choice or "feature", that is, we have chosen to capitalize the first letter in titles because it will almost always be correct. I am not sure, but I think I could do without such a feature.--Dittaeva 21:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yep, this is a conscious decision (a setting in MediaWiki). It mainly causes trouble for free software packages like bzip2. --Twinxor 05:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it being intentional makes it any less of a technical restriction, even if it's an option in MediaWiki. It's not as though we could turn it off at this point!  &mdash;SamB (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Goals
What goals do people want this template to satisfy? Mine are:


 * Tell readers what the correct title should be.
 * A heading or in-line text could do this. I'd prefer it to be large, but size is less important than existence.  Putting it on the talk page does not satisfy this goal.


 * Tell both readers and editors why the incorrect title had to be used instead.
 * Some small print with a link could do this.


 * Make it easy to identify articles whose title is incorrect.
 * Any use of a template could do this, even if the template is blank. A category might also be a good idea, and the template could place the page into a category.

&mdash;AlanBarrett 15:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Make it possible for a potential future version of the software to automatically use the correct title from the template instead of from the URL.
 * A template with a parameter could enable this.


 * I agree with all your goals. However I believe that the standard practice of writing the correct name in bold in the first line of the article fulfils (1) far less confusingly and garishly than the template.  The next two of your goals can easily be handled on the talk page. For the fourth goal re-editing these handful of articles when in the distant future a developer introduces a permanent change will not be a gret burden. - SimonP 15:54, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisations
On some pages, the appearance of The title given to this article is incorrect might look too much like an "this page is in error" to some people, when all that is wrong is capitalisation of the URL.

Might some pages not benefit from a template of the form: Note that the Wikipedia software miscapitalises this name, which is normally written as ...

Ojw 21:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. This subject is brought up later on this page, and the Template:Lowercase has been created for this purpose.  s p l i n t a x  (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not remove this limitation? Links could be left alone (with invalid capitalisation in URL), but a template or tag could provide proper capitalisation/spelling for the article. It's a matter of looking for it before outputting &lt;h1>.
 * There is a consensus against this, as 99% of articles start with a capital letter. See Naming conventions (technical restrictions) and Naming conventions --michael180 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

charset issues
See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Correct use of the templates

 * Halló! I am inserting Template:Wrongtitle or Template:Wrongtitlecat at all titles ralated to Romania and its culture where the UTF-8 chacarcters &#258;&#350;&#354;&#259;&#351;&#355; and the Latin-1 characters ÂÎâî are in location or in person names. Please stop me or advise me if necessary. Thanks! Best regards Gangleri administrator at ro: and eo: 18:38, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)


 * ÂÎâî needn't be removed from article titles. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 20:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template:Invalidtitle

 * Halló! Please also follow Wikipedia:Template:Invalidtitle. Best regards Gangleri | [ Th] | T 17:43, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Overuse of the template
Overuse of the template simply seems to be advertising the technical limitations which few actually care about, are familiar with, or which overlap or contradict the established style-guide deliniations between languages and article titles. UTF-8 encoding is subordinate to old ISO on EN, which (as I understand it) isnt going to change anytime soon. Why then advertise a technical issue which can be corrected in the first line of the article, for which only an apparent inconsistent use of Romalpha-based character systems/English exonyms/and Romalpha-transliterated native names? If flexibility dictates that articles can be titled according to non-standard characters, why then use exonyms like "Greece" instead of "Ellinikí", etc? -=SV= 00:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Aren't you really referring to all uses of this template rather than its overuse, given that any wrong title is corrected in the first line of article text? :)
 * I understand that there are two reasons to have a template: one reason is to be able to group these articles (doing a database SELECT based on whether they have a wrongtitle within them), and the other is a need to explain why the H1 heading at the top differs from the string used within the article.
 * Why we do it at the very top for all cases, that is something that should be discussed. I tried modifying the formatting for Template:Titlelacksdiacritics, but others reverted me. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering that there is very little distinction between proper use and oversuse of this template, there should be some enforced rules regarding what does and does not get used. I think that this is all improper, and only highlights a technical issue, which there isnt even an agreement to classify it as a difficulty The "Foo should be foo" is a good example of this problem.


 * I fail to see how one religious controversy (true Catholic Church) makes up for a good example of anything. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Wrongtitle includes five hundred pages where this is used, and even that is cut off at 500 due to resource exhaustion limits placed upon that special page. Numerous Unixoid command line utilities all begin with a lowercase letter and TTBOMK there is no dispute about the fact that their names should not be capitalized. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   15:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that its use is primarily limited to Roman alphabet-based systems is an ethnocentric concept of policy - why is a Swedish name called "wrongly titled" when a Chinese name is not? Its really very inconsistent, and only serves the purpose of advancing various diacritic systems. Further its not "wrong" - its policy to name things in English - not in any other language. The fact that there is limited capability for the latter should be a positive bellweather for the future, not a basis for complaining about the problems. -SV|t 21:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * All uses of the wrongtitle template have been changed to titlelacksdiacritics, so you're barking up the wrong tree here. Please consider Template talk:Titlelacksdiacritics instead. We have a discussion there where I argued that by and large it's not just about technical reasons, but some people disagreed. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

True Catholic Church
I have lately been in something of an edit war over the use of this template on the True Catholic Church article.I commented on that article's talk page months ago that this was not an appropriate use of the template,and after a prolonged period of no one responding to my arguments I replaced the template with a more detailed statement.User:Jtdirl reverted to the template and posted on my own talk page a defense of its use;after I responded on his page with an explanation of the NPOV issues raised in this instance he deleted his defense of his revert to the template from my talk page,which I took to mean he no longer stood behind that argument.So I reverted to my explanatory note.Someone else then went back to the template with a comment "rv vandalism",I responded to that reverting again,and User:Jonathunder then went back to the template again.

Essentially,the issue here is that the organization in question wants to be called the "true Catholic Church" with a lowercase T on the "true",and it is crystal clear that the purpose of preferring this usage is to demand that reference to them,by anyone,appear to use "true" as descriptive rather than as part of the specification of them as a distinct organization.A work that seeks NPOV can not regard a usage whose sole purpose is to prevent any appearance of NPOV as "the correct" title.If the technical limitations did not exist,the NPOV issue would still argue against using that as the article title.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Perfect example of why this thing is ridiculous. -SV|t 20:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't &mdash; and placing a "tfdss" tag on this template (without bothering to actually place the Template on "TfD") is unwarranted. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Wording
This template has been quite stable with the text:
 * The title of this article is incorrect because of technical limitations. The correct title is .

It, or a close variant of it, has existed for the entire life of the template (excepting the occassional edit/revert cycle).

On 17 May, Kaihsu modified it to read:
 *  is the correct title for this article. It is incorrect because of technical limitations.

Because there was no discussion on this page, I have reverted to the prior wording. If there is to be discussion about the wording, we can have it here. TreyHarris 15:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the most important bit of the statement, that is, the correct title, should go first. I am going to modify it. – Kaihsu 17:56, 2005 May 20 (UTC)


 * I've reverted to the original wording because the new wording didn't make sense. Kaihsu's approach has a lot going for it, in that it puts the correct rather than the incorrect version first &mdash; but just swapping the elements round isn't enough.  Given that changes to the template automatically appear on many articles, we should be particularly careful about how we change it. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * ..puts the correct rather than the incorrect version first.... I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. The incorrect version is always first; changing around the template can't influence the page's H1 title. To my eyes, the version Kaihsu wrote causes the correct title to get lost between the H1 title and the intro text.  In any case, the swapped-around version has a misplaced modifier, and the fix:
 *  is the correct title for this article. The title is incorrect because of technical limitations.
 * really seems to repeat too many words too many times in too little space. In any case, Mel is right&mdash;when somebody reverts you asking you to take it to the Talk page, I think it's bad form to just re-revert without expanding on your initial explanation.  TreyHarris 00:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I meant that the the correct version should be first in the template; rather than saying "this is the wrong title, it should be that", it would be preferable to say "that is the correct title" (after all, as you point out, we've already seen the wrong title &mdash; it's the correct one that's the subject of the template). The question is: can that be done simply and clearly? The present template is simple and clear, to my mind, so it's best not to change it until there's something as good (and agreed upon) with which to replace it. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Right now, the wording is really, really confusing. I knew exactly what it meant, but I still had to read it carefully three times to parse it.  Currently, this sentence is bad: "The title of this article is incorrect, either due to technical limitations or our policy of capitalizing the first letter in article titles because it will almost always be correct."  I'm removing everything after the word "because".  -- Plutor 14:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Limit trivial uses - New Subtemplates
People keep arguing that the template is eminently useful, but its main use appears to be for trivial issues of initial capitalization. I suggest to split use of the template up into subtemplates specific to unixlowercase, mathtitle, namelowercase, and nodiacritics. Each can then be judged on their own merits. In my opinion both unix and companyname are trivial (though not equally so), diacritics as expressing a bias toward Roman-alphabet systems, and math as easily explainable and therefore not requiring a notice. The concern that there should be some tagging for imminent transition doesnt deal with the fact that the template is overused for the rather trivial issue of capitalization &mdash;its MediaWiki internals and not encyclopedically relevant. -SV|t 09:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's say for the sake of argument that the template is often used for trivial matters of initial capitalisation. Can you explain, first, why that matters, secondly, against what standard you're measuring its use in order to judge that it's overused, and thirdly, why such a supposedly trivial matter is worth all this time and effort? Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? Because triviality here represents process creep into the content of articles as they are viewed on Wikipedia. The presence of other templates is likewise an abberation and should be limited to unobstructive notices, not excessive permanent fixtures on articles. IMHO these detract from the reading experience of Wikipedia, and validates the notion that Wikipedia itself is not a valid source, but just a content dump for drafts. -SV|t 23:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "triviality represents process creep into the content of articles" fails to convey anything to me. Could you explain what you mean in plain English? Similarly, labelling the "presence of other templates" (which is itslf too vague to be helpful) an aberration, the reference to "unobstructive notices", and so on, are more of a bar to understanding than a help. The one bit that I do understand is the claim that a reader seeing, say, "wrongtitle" is going to conclude that Wikipedia isn't a valid source of information, and I fail to follow that argument at all. On the contrary, the degree of carefulness that such a template indicates is more likely to reassure readers of our determination to be as accurate as possible. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Design
Why has this been changed to WP:TS? The guideline is for templates in the talk namespace, this template goes at the top of main namespace articles, and IMO looks appauling in this style. Joe D (t) 16:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have rolled this back because the current style works very well. It also doesn't have an ugly coloured box around it, and thus doesn't need to the coffee-roll applied to it. Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 16:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Joe D and actions taken by Burgundavia. Good work. -SocratesJedi | Talk 16:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the confusion, but according to Template messages/Disputes, this template goes on the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That looks like incorrect information to me, messages for editors go on talk pages and messages for readers go on the main article, and this one is a message for readers that informs them of the correct name of the article. It would also seem that its placement in the disputes page of WP:TM is incorrect, the name of the article isn't disputed, it's just that the software/http protocol doesn't allow us to give the page the correct name.  Joe D (t) 18:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Bolding
Heyas, I looked at the template conventions and most of them don't seem to have bold throughout so I've modified this template only to bold the new title (which draws attention to it nicely, which is the whole point of the template). If this is bad, revert and explain on talk. -SocratesJedi | Talk 16:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, Joe D is correct. WP:TS is for talk pages.  Backing off. -SocratesJedi | Talk 16:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

title
We now have title, which can be used instead of this. In pre-CSS browsers, it seems to just put the "correct" title after "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.", keeping the "wrong" one above. --SPUI (talk) 17:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Policy?
I'm not sure that it would be called a Wikipedia policy to capitalize the first letter of each article. It was my understanding that that was a mediawiki limitation/feature&mdash;Trevor Caira 17:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think in MediaWiki 1.5 you can allow lower case article names, but it seems unnecessarily cumbersome to me to be as wordy as the template currently is. Capitalisation can be seen as a self-imposed technical limitation if you like. Worldtraveller 17:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Given it is discussed at Naming conventions (technical restrictions) anyway, that is fair enough. Ed Poor started it :)  -- ALoan (Talk) 18:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:lowercase
I just discovered lowercase, which is a specialized version of wrongtitle (much like titlelacksdiacritics was). --cesarb 17:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Italics
I don't really like the fact that the italics extends to the correct title. I'm about to stop the italics immediately before. If someone minds, they can change it back, but the fact is, it's especially difficult to read the title on NaKATPase if the correct title is italicized. --D. F. Schmidt (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks better without those italics. Urhixidur 14:50, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

I thought I wasn't the only one to think so. By the way, I don't honestly know how I came upon that article. Haha. -- D. F. Schmidt (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Template broken for titles with =
A recent change to this template made it say
 * The correct title is 

Apparently this strange-looking syntax means you can now write as well as. The only problem is that you now can't have '=' in the correct title. None of the following works:



The only way I've found to fix this problem is to use. Is there any way to fix this template to avoid the issue? (Fortunately, there are only two pages with = in their title that use this template: 2 + 2 = 5 and 1+1=2.) dbenbenn | talk 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

fix
I fixed at least the main title problem with: Anyone oppose? If not, I think some rewording might be necessary. -- WB 04:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems like few pages (e.g. 2+2=5) is a problem because they didn't have a . However, besides that, it's working woderfully. For example, Led Zeppelin IV article actually displays symbols now! -- WB 04:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bit of a problem with Lp space too... -- WB 04:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Can cause a problem for articles with long titles. If the correct title only takes one line at the user's choice of screen and font size, while the incorrect title takes two, the second line of the incorrect title shows up below the correct title.  Also might cause problems for people using screen readers or other adaptive technologies, since it's a visual only kludge. What really ought to be done is adjust the MeidaWiki software so that if an article begins with "=Some Text=" it gets "Some Text" displayed as the article of the title.  You'd still need to kludge the equals sign, but that would make incompatible titles into a linking problem only.  Caerwine 22:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've removed the addition (here, and for lowercase) as it causes display errors when browsing with non-Monobook skins. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We had a similar problem on Uncyclopedia with Uncyclopedia:Template:Title-left (and -right, -middle). I would have preferred to remove the templates, but they have proven too popular, so I put in some workarounds to prevent the two most common display errors:  prevents any display if there is a sitenotice up (which causes a gross offset bug).   in the div prevents display by default, and an edit to MediaWiki:Monobook.css allows it to display only on the default skin. This does not however fix the wrapping bug. I am not suggesting the use of this system on wikipedia, just advising that it would be possible. --Splarka (rant) 23:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

techincal reasons
Do not cause cross-namespace references. The technical reasons are Naming conventions (technical restrictions) but you should not cause cross-namespace references are the page will appear on Special:CrossNamespaceLinks


 * What's wrong with that? It's useful to have the link. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Category
What exactly do we anticipate the category being used for? This is a meta-category and should properly be on the talk page, if a category is needed at all. But I would think what links here would be just as good. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Due to :-)
I corrected the use of "due to", and then later I had a stray thought. "Due to" is scary popular these days, but grammar weenies like me still get annoyed when it's misused. Another way to placate us is to change the wording so that "due to" is correct:


 * This article should be titled . The incorrect title is due to .

I don't know if that's an improvement over the current wording (or if it matters!), but it came to mind, so there you have it.

Workaround (might have been discussed before)
Has anyone else noticed that the French Wikipedia have developed a workaround for title-problems. The template fr:Modèle:Titre incorrect, when added with a name, overwrites the name displayed at the top, but preserves where it is located. I'm not sure if it was said above in this discussion, I think it was (and it was said it doesn't work with non-MonoBook) but that has also been solved on FR as when you switch to a non MonoBook skin, it shows a notice about the title instead. Should we use the code? It does work with some other skins, but the ones it doesn't it displays a message similar to what we currently use for all wrong titles. (for an example of it in use, see T.A.T.u., and if you have an account on FR, change the skins). But actually, looking at the code, I'm not sure if the way it works is solely to do with the template. Is it? I think maybe there's more to it? But regardless of how it's done, could we replicate it? The Italian template does it too, but the code is much longer. I have copied the Italian template to User:RedHotHeat/title where you can test it with. But if you use it on a skin that it doesn't work on, it just shows the original title (not even a notice), but I'm sure a replication of the French one is possible. I just copied the Italian because I'm sure all the code needed for it to work is in it already. - Рэд  хот  13:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Subscripts
Attempting to use this for En produces


 * The correct title of this article is En. It appears incorrectly here because of technical restrictions.

This bug can be worked around, and the glitch appears to be the interaction of italics and subscripts; but unless this can be fixed (preferably without involving developers) ther should be a note. Septentrionalis 02:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a bug that can be fixed
This is a bug that needs to be fixed, instead of worked around with kludgy, ugly, unprofessional templates. There is apparently a partial fix already, the magic word, that would allow titles to be rewritten, but it either doesn't work or is being ignored because Brion doesn't like it. Not sure. More bug votes and visible discussion would help give it the attention it needs.

If the only thing stopping it is the concept that "Keeping titles and link names the same is a key part of the wiki system", we can easily create rules for its use, like limiting what it can modify to only special characters, subscripts and the like (pretty much anything in Category:Articles with unsupported titles). So you could use  to make EBay display its title as eBay, or   to make SN2 reaction display as SN2 reaction, but you couldn't, for instance, use   in the Light bulb article; either making the software ignore it or, more likely, depending on editors to revert anything that didn't follow the rules, which would probably go in the Manual of Style. — Omegatron 00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It would definitely have to be limited. It's critical that it always be possible to take the displayed title of a page and use it to make a valid link. In particular, if a user can't use his/her browser to copy the title off one page and paste it into an edit box on another, the wiki is broken. This could work for lowercase initial capitals and sub/superscripts, but not for most other "technical restrictions" cases. It might be simplest to restrict it to lowercase initial letters only.--Srleffler 04:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a "link to this page with x" under the correctly-formatted title, if I understand correctly. — Omegatron 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

New Template
We, the Wookieepedians over at the Star Wars wiki have our own version of this template. but in ours it actually changes the articles name. For example, the article about the Force os: "The Force", but thanks to our version of the template it comes up as "the Force". This could help on wikipedia, for articles such as IPod! With this new version of the template the article would look like its namer "iPod". Anybody want me to bring the coding over here? Jasca Ducato 09:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it a CSS or javascript kludge? — Omegatron 16:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a kludge. It's a CSS. I can provide a link if requested. Jasca Ducato 14:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone already suggested the CSS and it was rejected. It's not a good solution. — Omegatron 14:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * think it's a CSS anyways. You'd have to ask the person who made it over at Wokkieepedia. Jasca Ducato 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

what's wrong with this template?
Something is wrong with this template. For example, lowercase seems to change the article name and the tag while removing itself from the page. The two templates have very similar code, but wrongtitle doesn't remove itself from the page. Anyone know what's wrong? I'm certainly stumped. --Ixfd64 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that wrongtitle doesn't change the article name on pages like C Sharp. I guess that this is due to HTML limitations. --Ixfd64 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This template also has problems on certain pages, such as It's On (Dr. Dre) 187um Killa. I guess that this is also due to HTML restrictions. --Ixfd64 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Category removed
Hi, just a quick note: I've just removed the category per Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 25. --S up? 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed update
{{selfref|1=This page is kept at {{PAGENAME}} because of {{{2|technical restrictions}}}.

Edit request
I would like to add  tags around the   tag as I have done to all the other "wrong title" templates, so the page's name displays correctly in the browser window. – Dream out loud (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a good idea? The template changes the page's title to its first parameter, so displaying Template: as the page's name in the title is a good demonstration of the use of the template. Template description pages normally show a demo of the page's use. --ais523 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is true, but it may confuse some users when they see Template: in their browser. Obviously, experienced users like us understand what it means, but others may not. – Dream out loud  (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE vs. JavaScript
I just tweaked this template to use the DISPLAYTITLE magic word instead of JavaScript whenever possible. This will let nontechnical users just use Template:Wrongtitle and let the software figure out the most appropriate way to fix the title. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How does the magic word work? I tried it on my sandbox page and there is no effect. SharkD (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't just change the page title to say anything you want. You can only make minor tweaks to the title like capitalization and formatting. A user must be able to copy and paste the displayed title and have it be a valid link to the displayed article. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The example of EBay
One of the examples in the template documentation is eBay/EBay, however the article itself does not have the template, nor is the capitalization done incorrectly -- thanks to the template. Yes, the URL itself begins with a capital letter, but the template doesn't refer to URL names, does it? Is this example a remnant of a technical limitation that has been corrected? If so, it should probably be removed.  Me Three  ( talk to me )  20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Substitution" is wrong
The missing term has been replaced or omitted. It has not been substituted. 65.123.43.130 (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is true. It should be changed. --Jtle515 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

vs.
Please see Template_talk:Title -- .rhavin;) (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wording II: because of vs. due to
Proposal: Change because of to due to* (*except in the generated text "It appears incorrectly here because of . . ."). I'm aware that due to has crept into all sorts of sentences in which it doesn't modify a noun. Normally, the "error" one sees is the overuse of due to in such situations, where it doesn't make a very clear link between two clauses, and usually because of or for or another conjunction or phrase is better. This is a rare case of the reverse error: Due to actually works better here, as it directly modifies a noun—the singular subject "substitution or omission." Because of is somewhat out of place here; because connects a phrase (e.g., "he did this" or "this occurred") with a reason. Here, due to is perfect: It's an adjectival phrase that modifies a noun. How do I change this (assuming there's no opposition or we achieve consensus)? Thanks. Holy (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding some logic
The wording produced by this template ("the substitution or omission of ...") is quite confusing for lay readers. Its best if we correctly identify if we substituted or omitted the offending character. One option would be to manually fill in the |edit= param (which if present replaces the text "substitution or omission") using AWB or somethin. Or add some parser function logic to automate it from here itself.

I surveyed a good number of pages using this template and noticed that for 99% of cases where the problem is with the # or | characters, there is a simple formula to find out if we omitted the character or substituted it: if the length of stored page name (stripped of any parenthetical disambiguation terms) is 1 less than the length of the correct title supplied to the template, its an omission, otherwise it's a substitution. This checks out correctly for the vast majority of cases. Where it doesn't, its easy enough to manually provide the |edit= param which will override the automated wording selection. SD0001 (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added in some logic for case of brackets too. If correct title length is 2 more than stored title, it's an omission, if they are equal, it was a substitution. If the difference is neither 2 or 0, the default wording is retained. SD0001 (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you edit this template so that we have the option to manually choose between substituted or omitted (example  /   or   /  ) because the automated wording selection is not working sometimes (example BABO). Thanks. --Hddty. (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The option is already there: use  or   . I just added it at BABO. SD0001 (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

handling underscore
This should probably include handling of the userscores in the title. E.g., lm_sensors is a very popular GNU/Linux utility that traditionally has an underscore in its name. MureninC (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Italicization
As evidenced by some 16-year-old talkpage comments above, italics in the correct title presented in bold by this template might be undesirable and could potentially confuse readers, e.g. if italics are semantically relevant. I've thus WP:BOLDly removed italicization from the bolded text to address this (diff) – feel free to revert if things go horribly wrong or if it's a terrible idea. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk · 01:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to have gone wrong, not horribly as far as I can tell, but almost definitely wrong. Pages including &sol now have misnested italics, which can be seen using LintHint applied to the content of that page pasted into Special:ExpandTemplates. Some of the affected redirect pages are currently listed here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing no response here, I have reverted this edit to fix these errors. Please experiment in the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)