User:NewsAndEventsGuy/CCRM-Table

Views expressed in climate change rename proposal 'These personal notes are just what I think'' I heard others say. This is still a work in progress... Please wait a day or two or five.... for no changes, as evidence of stability/completion'''

Front stuff

 * Main thread Talk:Climate_change
 * Compiled by
 * Attempting to succinctly sum up per WP:OTHERSOPINION
 * Full disclosure - as the RM (co)-proposer, I may have unconscious bias.
 * Please use the attached talk page to ask for corrections

Table
What does "Narrow issue" mean? ''As used in the table header, the "narrow issue" is
 * '' What is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC most people associate with the phrase 'climate change',
 * '' Is the existing title ambiguous?
 *  Since this article describes generic climate change, could the existing title be improved with parenthetical disambiguation (i.e., by adding "(general concept)" to the title?

What will closers look for? ''Per WP:Closing discussions and WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, closers (supposedly) look for more than just "Yes" and "No" type comments. They want to know what you think and more importantly WHY you think it.''

Done for now - I think
These editors have been invited to review the data entry in this table and use the talk page to request changes.

Still working on
These editors have not yet been invited to review the table. I am done with the first crude data entry but still need to do verify and double check and improve then ping these editors. I am doing one person at a time, and prioritizing responding to those who want to discuss the way I summarized their view. But I'll get to everyone if it isn't closed first.

I think SmokeyJoe Thinks
(still drafting, will ping when I am happy with this)

I asked a pending question here

I think J. Johnson thinks
(still drafting, will ping when I am happy with this)

Relevant P&G
The main policy is WP:Article titles which says in part


 * Lead
 * the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles.


 * #Deciding on an article title
 * The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.


 * #Use commonly recognizable names
 * 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) as such names will usually best fit the five WP:CRITERIA listed above
 * Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. (footnote omitted)
 * Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.
 * In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books ). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Search engine test.

Since 2011, the title policy has invoked the disambig guideline, starting with this 2011 diff.

POLICY Per WP:PRECISION ''Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article... Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as...'' then there is a list which includes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That's followed by a list of examples and the example for PRIMARYTOPIC is

''Energy is not precise enough to unambiguously indicate the physical property (see Energy (disambiguation)). However, it is preferred over "Energy (physics)", as it is more concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people (see Primary topic, and the conciseness and recognizability criteria).''

...and so the naming criteria text comes into play.

Some complain about making a long title. If they bothered to cite policy they would probably point at [{WP:CONCISE]], which says The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area. Notice that person familiar with the subject area is more likely to be aware of ambiguity than the average reader, and so there is a higher bar to disambiguate so that the person "familiar with the subject area" knows exactly which of the various meanings defines the scope of the article.

TODO
 * Review and add anything from policy section Article_titles
 * Review and add anything from guideline Disambiguation