Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 16

Enhance?
"The page is supplemented by naming guideline pages, which explain and enhance this naming conventions page."

Enhance in what way? Does it make the NC page more beautiful, more profound, more interesting? Surely it's enough that they explain; but "expand on" or "provide greater details of" would be the usual way to express this relationship, wouldn't it? Tony  (talk)  14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there are two kinds of guideline pages, and this is what was written until PBS found fault with it - there are some which explain in general how particular general principles are to be applied (WP:NC (common names) and so on), and there are some which contain conventions relating to particular subject areas (WP:NC (names and titles) and so on). Presumably PBS means that the first kind explain this page and the second kind enhance it - but why can't we just out loud what we mean in clear words? I don't understand this obsession with distinguishing and preserving the status of different types of page - nothing that isn't on this page is allowed to be called a "convention" (why on earth not?), you have to say "see ALSO MoS" because MoS isn't the right kind of guideline page... Why don't we just tell people what's going on instead of acting as if there's a kind of power battle between different pages?--Kotniski (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it really is an obsession with status. I see it on no other policy page – not NFC, not CIVILITY, not ADMIN. Yet there is precious little to be proud about in terms of this page as it stands; that is, if explaining naming conventions to the poor WP editors is the measure of quality. Is it? Frankly, I have never grappled with naming conventions because this page and its associated pages are so impenetrable and poorly organised. I'm sure a lot of editors are fed up with it, don't understand it, and therefore don't apply it. Can we lose this status thing and just get to work on making it accessible and clear to normal people? Yes, the fixation on relegat MoS to second-class status is hard to fathom. It would still be so if NC was worth its salt. Now, in terms of clarity and organisation, MoS is by no means perfect; but it leaves this page for dead. Tony   (talk)  14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The best way to understand our naming conventions is to ignore these pages entirely and go work in Requested Moves. That's where policy is set; this is where we masturbate over it reflect on it. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I strenuously disagree. Most of the people who work in RM are policy wonks who will do whatever this page tells them to do. Hesperian 23:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By "work in requested moves", I don't mean in order to listen to policy wonks. I mean in order to witness actual debates about actual pages, and to be smarter about it than the policy wonks. They don't set policy; the community does. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know anyone who is editing here who has a "fixation on relegat MoS to second-class status". But division of labour is desirable as it reduces conflict and confusion. Let us suppose that the naming conventions were to start to dictate how the style of the text in a page should appear (it is after all a policy). If it contradicted the style guidelines people would in my opinion rightly object because it would lead to confusion. Hence it is better that the content and the name of pages although related do not start to dictate to the other.


 * Enhance does not just mean to "more beautiful, more profound, more interesting", it also mean "To raise in degree, heighten, intensify", I considered augment, but that is not what I meant. As to another policy page that says something similar see WP:V "For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS). Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly." and also policies and guidelines "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are standards that all users should follow. ... Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence."


 * Also I know that in the past there has been considerable tension between editors of the main MOS page and some of the supplementary guidelines, when they contradict the main MOS page.


 * "Presumably PBS means that the first kind explain this page and the second kind enhance it - but why can't we just out loud what we mean in clear words?" No that is not what I mean. AFAIK all he guidelines with the exception of WP:NC (flora) (and possibly, depending on the version currently reverted to, WP:naming conflicts ) explain enhance the naming conventions policy page. The simplest way to achieve consistency is for this policy to take precedence and the guidelines to explain and enhance/augment this policy. But the augmentations should not contradict the core values of the policy, or one thing is certain it leads to what Tony says "Frankly, I have never grappled with naming conventions because this page and its associated pages are so impenetrable and poorly organised." If it is clear that this is policy and the others are guidelines that must not contradict policy things are much simpler, because there is only one page that has to be consistent with itself. -- PBS (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume Tony is talking about me. In fact, I don't want to reduce MOS to second-class status; I would prefer a first-class MOS, which would be concise,  contain only the guidance that was necessary for Wikipedia,   reflect the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole, and be based on sources. That would be brief, coherent, and stable. We don't have that and we aren't going to get it for the foreseeable future, even though such a document would have the status Tony so desperately wants for it.


 * In the meantime, I prefer to maintain the distinction between the MOS and the Naming conventions, especially when writing policy. (If the ideal MOS were magically to come into being, I still would; but the point would be moot, since (there as here) the guidance on dashes would follow English usage, and so be compatible.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be pursuing a war instead of trying to help people looking for guidance. Are you proposing different conventions for the use of dashes/hyphens in page titles than in page content? If not, there seems no purpose except personal point-pushing in refusing to state explicitly that WP's guidance on this topic can be found in the relevant seciton of MoS.--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am proposing writing no guidance for dashes into policy. Getting into that degree of detail, and that degree of disputability, is inappropriate for policy; and would be inappropriate no matter how good or how bad the rules were. As it is, anything more than a cross-reference is an invitation to self-appointed Language Reformers to start another bot war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As is often the case :-( Blueboar has said what I am trying to say more clearly, in this case in a reply to Xander on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict --PBS (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems to be an appeal to remove contradictions between guidelines and policy. Not to paper over them by just saying that policy takes precedence. In practice, as we know, this page does not have precedence over the more detailed guidelines. If I point out that Victoria of the United Kingdom is totally at odds with the principles of recognizability etc. espoused on this page, it will get me nowhere, because the monarchists insist that monarchs have to be given the made-up names that conform to their specific rule. It's the specific rules that take precedence in practice, not this page. Maybe sad, but you won't change anything by refusing to admit it in the wording of this page.--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am no monarchist, and I have considered the present text of WP:NCNT repeatedly. I have never seen a proposal to alter it significantly which had Consistency and did not ignore the requirement of Uniqueness. If you have one, make it there; if not, leave your claim that Henry IV of England is made up where you found it.


 * It may be that consistency between Henry and Victoria is unimportant, but that seems an odd position for someone who just promoted it to a general principle. (We could use the full form, Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; would this be an improvement?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Apart from implying I claimed something I didn't (I never mentioned Henry IV) you are now arguing that Consistency trumps all else. I disagree; but the point is, the fact that there is a rule about it means I don't have a chance, since the rule is now what counts, not the reasoning supposedly behind it. Basically it's the same situation as with the dashes in MoS, except I'm prepared to acknowledge (and even want to acknowledge) that WP does something even though I strongly believe it shouldn't. Anyway, I've kind of lost track of what this was about.--Kotniski (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've kind of lost track of what this was about. So it would appear. I have never argued that consistency trumps all else; I have argued, here and elsewhere, that which form of Victoria's name and titles is used makes little difference, save to consistency.


 * the fact that there is a rule about it means I don't have a chance, since the rule is now what counts, not the reasoning supposedly behind it. Precisely the opposite is true; the reasoning is what counts. If that reasoning, sketched in WP:NCNT, had not prevailed every time Her Late Majesty has been discussed, she would have been moved. Since WP:NCNT does what guidelines should do and documents what actually happens, it would have been changed too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the mindset that was prevalent last time I saw the name of the present queen's article discussed. First change the rule, then consider moving the article, was the viewpoint that seemed to carry the day. --Kotniski (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "In practice, as we know, this page does not have precedence over the more detailed guidelines." But it does, I only know of one guideline which directly contradicts the principle of use the most common name. The all the other guidelines enhance the policy by explaining divergence based on the general principles which can b justified by "Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". --PBS (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They may sometimes pay lip service, but the rules they actually come up with, and which are then implemented in practice, are sometimes diametrically opposed to recognizability. Or could be argued to be; but such arguments are not listened to once the rule is in place.--Kotniski (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which guidelines do you have in mind? -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Military ships come to mind:
 * For ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix, name the article (Nationality) (type) (Name)
 * See, for example, Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. That's not a name, that a frickin' introductory paragraph! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, that's a violation of "use the common name", not a violation of recognizability. But this illustrates why we need to emphasize the name in common name at WP:NC, and try to get all guidelines to follow it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, however, an application of Precision. Admiral Kutnetsov is a perfectly good name, but is ambiguous; if it has a primary referent, that referent is the human being Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov, not the ship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Common name
One question at hand is whether Common Names is an objective, a goal in itself, ranking with Consistency, say, as an inherent good. In one case, we can say:


 * Common name - Wikipedia article titles identify the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of each article. When naming articles, use the name most commonly used to refer to the topic by most English speakers.  This is often cited as the "Principle of least astonishment" and following it achieves consistency in article naming throughout Wikipedia.

in the other we can say


 * Recognizability – Article titles are those which most English speakers will understand from the title what the article is about. This is often cited as the "Principle of least astonishment".
 * Prevalence in reliable sources – Since Wikipedia is source-based, article titles reflect the usage of reliable sources, on which the articles are based. This is closely related to recognizability, as the dominant use in sources is likely to be recognized by most readers.
 * Consistency – Similar articles are generally given similar titles. This is often achieved by specific naming conventions being adopted for specific types of articles

This is a hair-thin dispute; but it can be resolved. The test is this: If one asks, "Why use common names?", that can be answered in other terms: because readers will understand them. If one asks: "Why use terms readers can understand?", the only reasons are restatements: "Because we write to be understood". Intelligibility is an end in itself.

On this analysis, common names are a means, although a very useful means, and one we should normally employ. I deny, by the way, that using common names achieves consistency, or is indeed always possible; those who assert this should state what names they would give Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, and Victoria of the United Kingdom (for bonus credit, what name should be given to Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden when she succeeds?) and then explain how the choices are consistent. This would imply that the ends it serves should be treated differently; I see no reason why, as in this edit (which did not last long enough to be seen), it should not be mentioned in the header - just not in the same list as the reasons for it. Discussion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, the distinction between "common name" and recognizability can be seen with this example, which I just mentioned above: Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. That's certainly recognizable, but that title is not (merely) a name, much less a "common name".  That's why I think common name needs to be prominent.  To illustrate with an extreme example, I'm sure we can all agree that we don't want Paris moved to , or Madonna (entertainer) moved to .   These are examples of over-precision, but they are also examples of titles going beyond merely specifying in the title the most common name plus disambiguatory information in parenthesis as required. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And, as above, this is why Common Name, by itself, cannot be the sole convention. Admiral Kuznetsov is a perfectly good name; but it is ambiguous. If it has a primary meaning, that meaning is Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov, the human being, not the ship. If it does not, we should use it for a dab page, not an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Serge Born2 Cycle may not recognize this, but he has weakened the case for common names, not strengthened it; his text gives no reason to use them. Patently, there are readers who do not regard the use of common names as self-evident; Serge's text (the first above) gives them no reason to accept that use, except an unclear invocation of the Principle of Least Astonishment (why is that good?) and the edict of the dozen of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle's distinction between common name and recognizable is useful. It is usually better to use a name than a descriptive phrase, even if the phrase is more informative. But this is an argument for "name", and says nothing about "common" v "recognizable". I really think "recognizable" is more fundamental than "common" (Why do we want a commonly used name? Because they are recognizable. The reverse does not hold.) This suggests that the solution may lie in "recognizable name".

Another option is to expand the "prevalence in reliable sources" section to say that we like these names because they yield what one would expect: a recognizable name in the right register—the old "shit" v "feces" argument. If recognizable is used in this context, it may not be worth quibbling over it in the other context.

Hesperian 23:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Register
The more I think about it, the more I think register is crucial here. Without a mention of register, "use the name most commonly used to refer to the topic by most English speakers" is simply false. Kotniski's "shit" versus "feces" argument gives it the lie.

It all comes down to the principle of least surprise. Yes, if readers are familiar with a name, they will expect us to use that name. But it is also the case that readers expect use to use a formal register. Ultimately "feces" defeats "shit" because "familiar", "common" and "recognisable" are all poor surrogates for the real underlying principle, which is the principle of least surprise.

Hesperian 00:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Format proposal
The present Overview section is performing the function usually expected of the intro. If we got rid of the header, and the sentence It consists of this overview, some general principles explaining how the criteria listed here are achieved, and a set of conventions applied to articles as a whole, or those in particular subject areas. which duplicates the TOC immediately above it, we would shorten the page slightly and adopt a more standard format.

While this pales in comparison with the vital issues in the sections above, it may last longer. Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done as part of a rewrite inspired by the section above. No change of policy intended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Hesperian 03:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The reverting needs to stop
It is disappointing that, as Kotniski has observed, no one seems willing to use the draft page I created the other day. Can I remind users that treating the policy page like a sandbox is unacceptable. I intend to ask for the page to be locked if the instability continues.

Can we agree here to create another draft page and work on that? Possibly one with a talk page (rather than the incompetent job I did of creating the page) would be more helpful, so the discussion can move directly there. Tony  (talk)  14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a draft page would help much (it will just give a certain person an excuse to restore the "stable" version of the page and blank out all the clarifying improvements that have been made over the last few days), but if it's clear that there's a difference of opinion about something, we must be prepared to discuss reasonably and in terms of making the accepted practice (whatever our views on it) clear to readers of these pages. --Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in favour of returning to an older version while we discuss the changes. Given that the page is now larger (51,069 bytes) than the version I reverted to yesterday (49,708 bytes) what do you think are the improvements that have been made over the last few days? --PBS (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The major change is WP:NC. Do you disagree with it on substance? If not, it does seem useful to pull together our goals and constraints into one visible section, and in the long run it may lead to shortening elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit clash) I am not against a major overhaul of this policy to make it clearer, but I made the point yesterday that major content changes can cause instability particularly when we have a number of editors who have yet to reach a consensus on some of the underlying principles which because the older wording is unclear, have been fudged for a long time. My own approach would be to go back to the stable version I suggested yesterday, and develop a new version for which the editors involved agree and then implement it. My observation is that Kotniski has suggested that a desirable goal is that the policy is more succinct, yet to date it as got larger and not smaller. I thought that the old first section also pulled our goals and constraints into one visible section and it was far shorter and easy to quote. -- PBS (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really; it effectively just mentioned one of the goals, which was highly misleading. The reason it's got longer is that we are now honest and state them all explicitly. We will eventually achieve succintness as we find that we no longer need to say certain things in certain places because they're covered by what we have right at the start.--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)The old wording did not mention precision and consistency as goals, nor uniqueness as a constraint. Another way to ahorten would be to retain the key-words, but, instead of a paragraph after each point, link to the general rule down below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One such change would be to take the time-honoured The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists out of Common name, and insert it in Recognizability head of the Overview; it always has been a general principle, and this would permit shortening of that bullet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.--Kotniski (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For me, the most important thing about the rewrites is that we spell out a list of principles, and explain that there is no system of trumps, but rather that decisions are reached by a consensus of editors, discussing particular cases, keeping those principles in mind. Any language about "this trumps that" is cancer, to my way of thinking. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about situations where, in practice, the consensus is that something does trump something else? You said yourself that specific guidelines tend to outweigh the general ones - why should we not inform editors that this is the case?--Kotniski (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I said that specific naming conventions tend to take precedence in many real-wiki cases. There's nothing black-and-white about, and the policy page, if it's to be accurate, should make that clear. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because they don't. Saying so would lead to guidelines all going their own directions, as Xandar would have his pet passage of WP:Naming conflict go. Guidelines are the balance between these principles in specific contexts, as currently seems best to us; no guideline can override the objectives for which the naming guidelines are made. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying so would not lead to that if it's done carefully, and emphasizes that all of these principles exist in a state of dynamic tension. It's not about trumps, either one way or the other. I don't consider you a reliable source regarding Xandar's motivations, by the way, nor do I consider such accusations helpful in the least. Do you know what number I'm thinking of, or does your ESP only extend to thoughts about Wikipedia policy? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not Apéry's constant, is it? But I don't need telepathy to read Xandar's claims, often repeated, that this policy this policy defers to the passages of WP:Naming conflict on self-identification. (If PBS is annoyed, I think it is this claim that did it - judging by his edit, replying immediately.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's n- Am I getting you and PBS mixed up now? Are you both picking on Xandar in the wrong way? Come now... let's not model Xandar's behavior back to him, please? Pretty please? Just find a way of talking about it without saying who wants what. Please? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC) It's between ζ(3) and 2.
 * Spoilsport. OK, I guess. Phi? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Way too obvious. But warmer, in absolute value, if not number theoretically. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 17:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PMAnderson seems set on changing the policy pages by stealth in order to help him get the results they want on Naming conflict, and the naming of specific articles. This is gaming the system. The convention PMAnderson wants to eliminate has been stable for years and worked well, and no argument or problem has been raised against it other than in his and his few allies opinion, it "contradicts" the policy page. (Hence the determination to get rid of a certain couple of sentences here that torpedo that argument -and the continual reversion wars) I didn't write the convention on the naming of self-identifying entities. It's been there with no problems since 2005. It solves a lot of problems and helps the encyclopedia. Therefore I and fellow editors are not prepared to see it changed by a small clique for factional reasons.  Xan  dar   16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you figured out yet which number I'm thinking of Xandar? Here's a clue: SAYING THAT SOMEONE SEEMS INTENT ON DOING SOMETHING BY STEALTH IS a DOWNRIGHT STUPID MOVE, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ADVANCE YOUR POSITION AT ALL, BUT IT CONVINCES EVERYONE THAT YOU'RE STUCK IN AN INFANTILE, COMBATIVE, CONCLUSION-JUMPING MINDSET. GET SMART, STOP TALKING ABOUT OTHERS' MOTIVATIONS, AND ARGUE LIKE A %^&*##@ ADULT. Another clue: it's between 1 and 2. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus you may think that but I do not think your view is the common one, Consensus includes weighting for policy and guidelines. Although the wording varies from time to time the Consensus policy warns about a local consensus amoung a limited group of editors (WP:CONSENSUS). Similar things can happen with the advise in guidelines which are not widely exposed to the community in general, for example see this now historical proposals Naming conventions (Czech) which was for a short time a guideline. -- PBS (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's not common enough. There is a widespread superstition that experienced Wikipedians such as yourself should be trying to help combat, and not reinforcing by capitulating to the legalistic interpretation. I'm certain that isn't your intent, but it's the effect of the arguments you're making. I'm certainly not making the case for a local consensus somehow overriding a more broad-based one. If my comments come across that way, then I need to be more careful. From years in Requested Moves, I can testify that very many specific naming conventions have been broadly accepted. You're entirely right to point out that others have not. That's what we need to make clear. None of this is black-and-white. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Xandar this is not a change in policy it is what the naming conventions policy has said for a long time, and it is supported by Policies and guidelines --PBS (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, no human has the power to change policy by editing a page. Repeat this 100 times each night before bed. Policy is what it is; this page might become more or less accurate through editing. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what you are saying! Policy is not a shadow of a metaphysical chair. What appears on this page and in the guidelines is quoted on article talk pages. I too am an old hand at WP:RM and personally I follow the policy and guidelines when making decisions on page moves. I always work from the centre outwards. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy is what we do in fact agree on as goals. Therefore what we actually on average do at WP:RM is policy; so are the reasons which are actually consistently persuasive. This page is a reasonably successful effort to describe policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict - re to PBS) You don't understand? Well, it's this: policy pages are where we attempt to record best practices. Best practices are determined in the field, and written down later. Sometimes policy lags behind actual practice. Sometimes, policy pages go off the rails and become silly. For the underlying principles, I recommend reading WP:PPP and WP:WIARM. You could also talk with User:Kim Bruning or User:Radiant. They understand this idea a lot better than most, and articulate it well. It's basically just a consequence of IAR. Wikipedia is not a rules-game. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Kim and I know each other well! I have also discussed things in the past with Radiant. Policy pages are not just a record of what is done, they are part of a positive feedback loop. People look at policy and guidelines and quote both to help make decision on article talk page, so they reinforce what is written in the policy and guidelines. Let me give you an example: there a sentence "Where articles have descriptive names, they must be neutrally worded.", it was not put into the policy because of best practice it was put in to exclude bad practice! (as the shows). Once the wording was in this policy people could quote it and it becomes part of best practice. --PBS (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not the only time Xandar has claimed dishonorable motives; Knepferle's protest is more eloquent than I. As far as I can tell, the editing which has affected Xandar's pet passages (of WP:NC, that is) has not been mine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If Xandar has any idea what's good for him, he'll learn very quickly to stop claiming dishonorable motives. Such claims do him no service, nor his argument. The fact that PBS is making reciprocal claims is perhaps more disappointing, because he really, really should know better. I don't know what's going on there. They obviously both mean the best, but can't seem to rise above playground tactics. What a shame... -GTBacchus(talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left notes for both users, explaining the situation. Hopefully we've heard the last of it, and will be able to discuss this policy page without having to listen to more irrelevancies about who thinks who has it in for what. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read the comment you have placed on my talk page and I have no idea what you are talking about! But I'll comment further on this on your talk page.--PBS (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I got you mixed up with PMAnderson, who made a remark about Xandar's nefarious motives. I somehow thought that was you, in my stupidity. I'm sorry. I think I'll step away from this page for a little bit now. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have got mixed up about a lot of things GTB, especially blundering in with biased one-sided rantings on my talk page. If you check the Naming conflict talk-page you will see non-stop denigration of my motives by PMA and others - as well as here. I thionk you need to start looking at the people who are in the process of deleting important elements of policy anfd guidance without even local consensus and by a process of constant edit-warring.  Xan  dar   20:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. So you still think that policy consists of words on a page, and you still think that I'm picking on poor little you. The question is, can you stop maligning the motives of others? I'm willing to be the idiot here, are you willing to behave honorably? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly willing to discuss issues and principles. But there's been precious little of that, and a lot of significantly changing the policy-page on the run, and when the changes are reverted, instead of trying to discuss them or come to agreement, the controversial changes are put back on the page an edit-warring sequence. That is NOT how these things are intended to operate. And significant changes need greater community consensus than normal - not less.  Xan  dar   20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're talking. Keep that up, and leave motives out of it. If others disparage your motives, test me and see if I'm one-sided. I'm ready. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Restore to stable version; then work on draft
If this page is restored to the stable version it was in before the recent flurry of changes, then it would make sense to work on a draft. But leaving it in an unstable condition while we work on a draft indefinitely is not acceptable. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Every Wikipedia page is a draft. --Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's well said. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with B2C. While Wikipedia pages my be subject to alteration, the page that exists is not a draft it is the current version. An policy page that is subject to frequent edit that contradict each other is not good for the project. It is better to work on out differences on a draft version and keep changes to the policy page to a minimum. --PBS (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Strenuously disagree. At this point, edits to the policy page can be divided into two classes: Neither is grounds for dumping a week of progress. Hesperian 23:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Unobjectionable polishing; and
 * 2) An edit war over a sentence that doesn't matter.

Exceptions

 *  our naming conventions, guidelines ... include specific exceptions to the general criteria

This is a novel principle. It was not here at the beginning of the month; it has never been in this text, and is contrary to WP:POL, which says that policy overrules guidelines. What guidelines do do is advise which principle to follow when the criteria conflict, as they will - being distinct principles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a novel principle, it is a long-standing one. Many of the guidelines document exceptions to general policy statements. This is a fact. The statement was taken out of its longstanding consensus position at the head of the "Use Common Names" section. When it was suggested that it would be better placed in the Overview section, I tried moving it there.  Xan  dar   01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. The wording Xandar cites is:
 * Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline
 * That is to say, there may be exceptions to Common Names (or any one of the other principles) - when another principle conflicts with it. That's inherent in having more than one principle - as we must, to have any useful guidance and still recognize Uniqueness. The novel wording above asserts that it is possible and desirable for guidelines to make exceptions to all the principles enunciated by this page. That is both new and against consensus.


 * What guidelines can do is advise on what happens when the principles here conflict, as the page now says:
 * our naming conventions, guidelines which explain these principles and objectives further, advise on managing conflicts between them, and apply them to specific fields.


 * third party comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The sentence clearly says "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication". It's quite clear. There are none of the cavills that PMAnderson wants to add. It says nothing about other "principles". It just says that other naming conventions indicate exceptions, which arise in the cases covered by the particular convention. This is quite a simple and useful common-sense approach, reflecting what really happens on Wikipedia. That is the existing consensus as proven by the wording and the same principle was reaffirmed a few weeks ago on this page.  Xan  dar   01:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen people read sentences out of context before; but reading a subordinate clause independently of the sentence of which it is part is new. The whole sentence is quoted above; it deals with exceptions to WP:NC, which do (and must) exist, if only because two articles can have the same most common name, but can't have the same title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is usually a bad sign when you are the only person proclaiming the absense of consensus on some point.

That makes nine reverts in just over three days. I'm pissed off that we have actually been making progress on this page, and it is being disrupted by Xandar's repeated fly-in fly-out reverts, motivated by a dispute that has nothing to do with us. I've reported this to ANI.

Hesperian 01:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You can be as Pissed off as you like, hesperian, you and your friends are NOT GETTING AWAY with changing long-standing policy without consensus. No matter how you shout and scream and continue revert wars. The people disrupting the page are those insisting on making substantive policy changes without consensus. I am merely reverting vandalism to the policy page.  Xan  dar   01:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite Septentrionalis and B2C seem to be alone here in stating that there aren't or shouldn't be exceptions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Previously this policy attempted to make rules, and therefore it also had to state exceptions. Now it states principles, and waits to see what is the consensus on how to meet and balance those principles. There is no longer such a thing as exceptions, because there are no rules to make exception to. The people working here have very mixed views on the extent to which a specific convention may better reflect consensus than this general one does; but I think we all agree that at this point an explicit statement on "exceptions" is redundant at best, and at worst encourages people to read this policy as rule-based.
 * The irony is that the people who were pushing for the ability to make exceptions are the biggest winners here. They've won a lot more than the ability to make exceptions: the very rules that exceptions were being made to have been set aside, and replaced with broad principles. But instead of celebrating, they are suspiciously eyeing off their new freedoms, trying to figure out how they've been shafted. It would be funny if it weren't tragic. Hesperian 06:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "exceptions" is too strong, but in some fields, some of the principles (and certainly, some of the prinicpals) should be "disregarded", as defined by subarticles. Perhaps that's a better concept, to work with, but I'm not sure how to word it.  I think we need it specified that conventions for specific fields in subarticles can lead to disregarding #Common name, for instance.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. :-) Hesperian 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hesperian and others claim on THIS page that "the policy is not rule-based" - so we don't need to maintain the clear statement that it has exceptions. However on other pages, a very different line is being pushed - that conventions (- like WP:Naming conflict) and article pages, need to be radically changed against consensus in order not to "contradict" this policy page. There therefore needs to be clear confirmation remaining on the policy page that the conventions are exceptions and not contradictions. Personal "assurances" from individual editors will not suffice - particularly in the light of what is going on elsewhere - and the attempts to silence opposition to their changes. 212.140.128.142 (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Xandar is currently blocked, and that this IP has been previously suspected of being used by him here Knepflerle (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What are conventions?
As I look at the page at this precise moment, the first sentence says "The naming conventions page sets out our policy... It is supplemented by our naming conventions, guidelines which..." Something's clearly weird here. If "our naming conventions" specifically excludes the policy page, then we'd better change this page's present title. (Of course, you could argue that being titled "Naming conventions" means that it's about naming conventions, not that it is naming conventions, but that's highly misleading to everyone, particularly since the naming conventions are not the main topic of this page.)

To me, it seems natural that the word "conventions" should refer to the specific arrangements we've adopted (ships have to be titled this way, monarchs that way) rather than the general principles that are the focus of this page. So I would propose renaming this page to something like WP:Article naming, as I believe has been suggested before. But if we want to keep it at its present title, then something has to be done about that sentence.--Kotniski (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The main topic of this page are the conventions. This is the naming conventions page. The other pages are guidelines to this page. As I have said several times before I think we should rename this page so that this is made clear. I put in a RM last year but few people took part and we could not agree on a name, so the page was not moved. -- PBS (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand - if you believe that "this is the naming conventions page" (as its current name implies), then why do you want to rename it? --Kotniski (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained my reasons in the RM last year. -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So your preferred name is WP:Naming convention? I'm not convinced the -s makes much difference (and I don't see enough uniformity in our practices to justify saying that we have a single convention), but let's see what others think.--Kotniski (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I said I explained my reasons last year, I did not say that I chose the best name last year. I put in the WP:RM with multiple options, because was not sure what would be the best name. My first choices were "Naming convention" and "Article naming policy" but I struck out "Article naming policy" as one of my choices in the hope that those taking part in the debate would coalesce around "Naming convention" because it involved the minimum change in the name to effect the change I wanted to implement. However others did not follow my lead so the result was no change. I am not against "Article naming" (although I thought "Article naming policy" was better). -- PBS (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If this were "Article naming policy" and the others were "Article naming (ships)" or whatever, then the relationship would be clearer than if we use "Article naming" and "Article naming (ships)" which given the usual Wikipedia disambiguation usage could end up with the same confusion as we currently have. --PBS (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to retaining "Naming conventions (ships)" and so on, since these specific-topic pages do contain "conventions", as I intuitively understand the word.--Kotniski (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, "Article naming" would be soooo much better. Let's call a spade a spade. Will you launch another RM, please? I agree with Kotniski's points. Tony   (talk)  12:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind doing so (and I think it ought to be a multi-name choice like last year and not just a two name race), but given that some have accused me of owning the page would it not be better if it were proposed by someone else? --PBS (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly support your move; I'm sure there'll be others who'll do so, too. Tony   (talk)  14:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS, can you explain to me why Naming conventions is a convention, but Naming conventions (comics) is not? After all, they both have conventions in their name. I could understand if you said "This is policy; the other pages are guidelines." But I don't know how to parse your assertion that "This is convention; the other pages are guidelines". Hesperian 13:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The conventions are contained withing the naming conventions page, comics is a guideline to the conventions. Last year I chose "naming convention" in the hope that it would be accepted as a compromise name (note the strike out). It was not my preferred choice but "naming convention" had the advantage that people were less likely to confuse policy and guidelines, and I agree it is not the clearest name. --PBS (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Predictable names
I have reverted the change which took the page away from recognizable to predictable because predictable implies consistency and "descriptive names" coined by editors rather than names based on reliable sources. One of the things that goes out of the window with predictable names is precision, as editors tend to tack on words to names to make them into groups eg "Nazi German occupation of ..." even though there may never have been any other German occupation of the country making the word Nazi superfluous. --PBS (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it implies descriptive names. If a topic has a familiar name, then to spurn it in favour of a descriptive name would be unpredictable, I should think.
 * I agree that it applies consistency, somewhat. It also implies recognizability, however. For example, surely "Queen Victoria" is more predictable than "Victoria of the United Kingdom", even though the latter is consistent with other articles. Considering that "predictable" implies a tension between familiarity and consistency, and that tension really does exist in naming, it did seem quite appropriate to me.
 * But if you're happier with PMA's version, let's stick with that for now and see how it shakes out over time.
 * Hesperian 11:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we want to get too bogged down in philosophy - of course everyone will have their own way of expressing these ideas, but the important thing is to get the practical points across clearly to people reading this page.--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Philosophical hair-splitting is often good... but it sure isn't when real progress is happening but fragile. Onwards and upwards! Hesperian 12:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we don't do philosophical hair=splitting at some point, the nationalists will do it for us. But whether we need it right now is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Title should be (most common) NAME of article topic
I see nothing in the overview that indicates the title of an article should be the name of the topic of the article, much less the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of the article. "Easy to find" makes a vague reference to the latter notion, but it hardly stands out the way it used to.

Perhaps that is the intent, but, if so, then this naming policy currently barely reflects how the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are actually named. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That statement is (with "most common") is not policy, or even a guideline. However, the title of an article (generally) being a name of the topic probably should be said, although the Principle of Least Surprise suggests it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether it's stated or not (and it used to be), that is the de facto policy implemented in the naming of the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, and has always been. The official policy should reflect that reality.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To remedy this, I altered the description of "recognizable" to this:
 * Recognizable – Proper article titles specify what the name of the subject of the article is in English; this implies that, when possible, an article title will be the name most commonly used in English to refer to the subject of the article. This is often cited as the "Principle of Least Astonishment".
 * --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I could go with that (if some wording about exceptions or deweighting of principles appears in the lead), except that it may need to be made clear that "the name of ... in English" is not necessarily the "English name"; if the "English name" is rarely used in English, than the name in the most common foreign language should be used. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions are unacceptable, it is like having exceptions in one of the main content policies.

B2c I thought that "Convention: Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize – usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English." was a convention that covered this. --PBS (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Exceptions to the general rules are necessary; however, as long as it's clear that subarticles (specific "naming conventions") can override ("interpret" is not adequate) specific conventions here, I consider my "exception" requirement met. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Subconventions may override one principle because another conflicts with it; but suppose a subconvention said all articles on topology must have names ending with "...on wheels", like homotopy theory on wheels?


 * That's the sort of thing I'm worrried about: a subconvention being hijacked by a small group of people who want to use it to push some point of view, whether or not is beneficial to the encyclopedia. I think the present wording avoids this problem, but would like a chance to consider it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your problem; I don't see that a wording without some specific "override" or "disregard" provisions can meet the required flexibility to include our current plant and city naming convention. In fact B2C has already (mis)interpreted WP:NCGN as not overriding what he considers to be WP:NC (CN).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the city naming convention is a conflict between Recognizability (and its offshoot, Common Names) and Consistency. Similarly, the flora naming convention is a conflict between Consistency on one hand and Recognizability and Ease of Finding on the other; which do you recognise, Flowering Dogwood or Cornus florida? On this page, there is an explicit acknowledgement that guidelines adivse on managing such conflict; do we need overriding languag beyond that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine any rational convention which wouldn't be in support of one of the conventions presently listed (changing "Common Nane" back to "Recognizability", anyway), but then, I wouldn't have imagined B2C's previous interpretation nor the bizarre interpretations of consensus in the date linking fiasco. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the convention which brought me back here? A few paragraphs in a convention can be read, if you're determined enough, as affirming a principle Always use self-identifying names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Allowing unlimited exceptions nullifies point of having policy
What's the point of having a policy if unlimited exceptions are allowed? A few exceptions, on a per-article basis, (like Fixed-wing aircraft), are true and very limited exceptions (and allowable per WP:IAR if nothing else). That's one thing. But to have guidelines for any group of articles to override the general policy? That effectively nullifies the policy. The broad unlimited exceptions render "policy" to not even be a guideline, much less true policy.

The general policy should be broad enough to encompass, not contradict, any reasonable specific guideline. A contradiction (or need to "override") between general naming policy and any more specific guideline should always indicate a need to change the general to be broader, or to alter the more specific to be in line with the general policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The general policy you are proposing above (changing "Recognizable" to "Common Name") requires exceptions. Do you wish to reconsider.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Only a policy so broad as to be useless would not require at least some exceptions on a per article basis. But the broadly followed use the most commonly used name as the title of the article convention does not require even a single guideline for any group of articles to be an exception. Frankly, it's disappointing and disheartening to see that some very experienced editors still believe that it does.


 * Every guideline could easily be brought into compliance with use the most commonly used name as the title of the article. It happened with TV episode names a few years ago, and I see no reason it can't happen with every single other guideline.


 * But, of course, there will always be exceptions on a per-article basis, in particular when the most common name cannot be used for a given article due to conflicts with other uses of that name (e.g., Paris, Texas, James Stewart (actor), etc.), or when the most commonly used name cannot be determined (e.g, Fixed-winged aircraft). But there is no reason use the most commonly used name as the title of the article cannot be the default rule used for naming articles within any group, where more specific dab rules are only applied when exceptions are required on a per article basis.


 * Now, do you wish to reconsider? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, there are exceptions to the rule (on a per article basis), and there are rules that make exceptions the rule. I would think we would want the former, but not the latter. Yet when we have more specific naming guidelines that override the general naming policy, what results is exceptions are the rule, and the general policy is made essentially pointless.

We certainly want more specific guideline that clarify and expand on what the general guidelines are for a particular group of articles, especially to provide guidance on what to do when it is not possible to follow the general rule in some particular case for some reason. But I honestly see no point in even having general policy and guidelines if more specific guidelines contradict or "override" what the general policy and guidelines say to do even in cases where the general policy and guidelines can be followed. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP article titles must be precise??? Since when?
This meaning of precise, as per the current wording in the policy, is generally not reflected in Wikipedia article titles, nor has ever been:


 * Precise – Good article titles are precise and unambiguous; if the title identifies precisely what the subject of the article is, readers will not have to go into the body of the article to find whether they're in the right place; excessive precision does nothing for them. In cases where otherwise natural titles are ambiguous, precision is achieved through disambiguation.

Precision in article titles has only been emphasized in Wikipedia for the purpose of disambiguation, and only when necessary. For example, WP:PRECISION states:


 * if the subject of the article is the primary meaning of the word or phrase, or if it is unlikely that the other meanings will have Wikipedia articles, then the article may be titled with that word or phrase alone.

The wording above goes way beyond that, implying that article titles should be more precise than is merely necessary to not be ambiguous with other uses of that name in Wikipedia, if the more precise title identifies precisely what the subject of the article is, while the precise (but not ambiguous) title does not.

Again, I obtain an example by clicking on WP:RANDOM. I got Point Lobos Ranch. Is this precise? Apparently, it's unambiguous (there is no other Point Lobos Ranch). But it still does not "precisely [identify] what the subject of the article is". would be more precise.

The notion that the title of an article should precisely identify what the subject of the article is is novel to Wikipedia, and has no place in this policy. If nothing else, it directly contradicts the very notion of a primary topic. The title of an article that is the primary topic for its name is inherently imprecise. There is nothing precise about the name Paris. Giving "precision" equal billing, if you will, to "recognizable", is not being consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia article naming at all.

In fact, the two goals of using a name and precision in article titles are inherently conflicted. Names are rarely precise; descriptions are precise. The very idea of applying precision to a name is absurd.

The only realm in which the precision and names are not in conflict, that I can think of, is scientific names of plants and animals. Coincidence? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Scientific names are valuable not because they are precise but rather because they are unambiguous.


 * I see your point about precision, and I actually somewhat agree. But another factor is accuracy. To call the city in France "Paris" is imprecise, but to call it "Île-de-France" or "Enclos-St-Laurent" is inaccurate. Is it okay to use an inaccurate name for an article if it is easily recognizable?--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, precision is in the eye of the beholder. Tony   (talk)  02:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But precision has always been advocated here, and should still be. Born2cycle is tilting at windmills: Point Lobos Ranch is a proper name, and apparently a unique proper name - as such it identifies one thing in the universe, which is as much precision as anybody could reasonably require. The text he removed warns against excessive precision; his preposterous example is what is meant by that. Let me see if I can word it to guard against such a reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

specific and common in the lead
I have removed specific in several places from the lead. From "specific guidelines", because guidelines also cover general points, and from in front of recognizable, because I do not think it adds clarity and could probably makes the statement less clear.

I removed "and describe situations in which specific priniciples may be considered less applicable than other principles" because it is already stated in that sentence more succinctly, with "advise on managing conflicts between them, expand on the general conventions".

I have also removed "common name" from the introduction. It is already mentioned in what is now the the first section, and repeating it in slightly different wording does not bring clarity to this policy.

These are all changes to the lead which ought to be a summary of what comes below. We do not have to place all the details into the lead, there is a lot of space further down to include specifics. -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusion with articles named after musicians

 * I really don't see the need for different naming conventions for different musicians. For example, we have Fergie (singer), Usher (entertainer) and Common (artist). Why can't they all be one thing? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Song naming
I have been told that song articles should take the name of the first artist who recorded it, no matter whose version is the most famous (e.g. Addicted (Cheryl Wheeler song), even though Dan Seals was the only artist to release it as a single). But what if the original and most famous versions have different titles, as in Wild One (Faith Hill song)? The song was recorded by a group called Evangline about a year before Faith's version came out, but Evangeline's was called "She's a Wild One." The Faith Hill version is the more recognizable version, so the article should have some form of "Wild One" as the title, and not "She's a Wild One." So should it stay "Wild One (Faith Hill song)" or "Wild One (Evangeline song)"? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly it seems that the current name would be the most helpful to readers. In fact, if the "first artist" rule really is a rule, then it doesn't sound like a good one. --Kotniski (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would leave it at its current title if that's where most people would look for it, but would redirect She's a Wild One and Wild One (Evangeline song) there. Station1 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tag
user:Xandar please explain this edit to the section "General conventions and guidelines" because over the last few days there has not been any editing of this section. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Query recent edits
"Our readers are mostly not specialists; article names should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."

I don't like "our" in a formal register such as this; actually, the first clause could go completely. Just what the second clause means in practice is hard to know, even if we use this argument on the talk page from time to time WRT each other. Third clause: so a skin-condition article has to be called "Red rash", does it? Tony  (talk)  02:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Red rash" would be ever-so-slightly ambiguous, given a quick flick through the average dermatology textbook ;) Knepflerle (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Since these are distinct criteria, they can conflict with one another; in such cases, the questions about article names are resolved by discussion towards building consensus, always with these principles in mind."

Presumably they could conflict even if they weren't distinct; the logic ("Since") doesn't work. After the semicolon, it doesn't seem to add anything that WP doesn't already know. Tony  (talk)  02:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the first clause is logically flawed and largely redundant, but I think the second phrase is important, at least during the period of transition from rules-based wording to principles-based wording. How about "Conflicts between these criteria are resolved by discussion towards building consensus"? Hesperian 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect, but don't know, that the writers of this phrase assumed that most Wikipedia editors are "experts", and that readers are generally undereducated people with limited vocabularies. Such an assumption is wildly inaccurate, as many subject-matter experts read Wikipedia without editing it, and most of our best editors regularly work in areas outside their expertise, especially copyeditors and wikignomes.
 * In terms of a page title that might be optimized for editors rather than readers, perhaps they meant to deprecate using names that were very short (and thus easier for the editor to type) but essentially uninformative (e.g., IBM instead of International Business Machines -- except, of course, that IBM is the company's current formal name). Beyond that, I can't imagine any circumstance in which a name would be efficient ("optimized") for an editor but not for a reader.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)\
 * The assertion that our article titles are optimized for readers and not for editors, lay readers and not for specialists has always been in this policy, and usually in the lead. It makes two distinct assertions: that editors should not make editing easy for themselves when this inconveniences readers; and that our readers should not be assumed to be specialists. Specialists have other sources - usually reliable and not subject to vandalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This sentence poorly articulates that once we have picked the most common title from all unambiguous titles in verifiable use which are reasonably consistent with our other articles, then there is no need for any spurious "extra" precision for its own sake. Moving "Germany" to "Federal Republic of Germany" or "gypsum" to "calcium sulfate dihydrate" gains us nothing in terms of reducing ambiguity, but probably reduces ease-of-accessibility in some sense. If a new wording could better illustrate this spirit, it would be an improvement. Knepflerle (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are good examples of "specialist" rather than "general audience" examples, but my concern is with the apparently meaningless "readers over editors" line. It seems entirely unnecessary to me.  Perhaps someone that thinks it is valuable can provide an example of a title that favors a non-specialist editor over a non-specialist reader -- and that is honestly likely to be a subject of dispute (i.e., an issue for which having a written standard would be helpful, rather than simple bloviation and WP:CREEP).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Readers over editors" is a very old bit of language that I agree is a bit mysterious. I think it meant that we don't manufacture standards solely to make our work of adding links easier. I don't oppose the taking out and shooting of that phrase, unless someone can make it make more sense. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact we do manufacture standards solely to make our work of adding links easier. Whether we should is another matter; but we do. One has only to look at the various geographic locality conventions that advocate predisambiguation e.g. Meekatharra, Western Australia not Meekatharra. Therefore I agree: take it out the back and shoot it. Hesperian 07:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --PBS (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Undone. The example provided by Hesperian is a good one. The article should have the title Meekatharra because that is the common name of the place and there is no need for disambiguation. If, for some technical editing reason, we need the link Meekatharra, Western Australia too, this may be provided as a redirect. For another example, consider the common usage Xxxxxx (disambiguation). This is written in full, rather than being abbreviated as Xxxxxx (dab) per our common internal usage. This may be less convenient for editors who have to type this long form, but it is clearer for readers and so we prefer it. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be more comfortable seeing decisions about how to name localities in Australia made with some input from those who work on those articles, than to see it made in the abstract on this page. If there's a consensus to include the province in Australia town names, then I'd like to at least include in the discussion those who arrived at said consensus. If it turns out to be ill-founded, that's one thing; if it turns out that consistency has been chosen for reasons that the community buys, then that's another thing. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden has given an lucid reasons for keeping the phrase "readers over editors" in the sentence, whether or not the specific example of Australia is valid. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And in general, we as editors tend to see our own convenience more readily than the convenience of readers whom we should be serving. We may not fall into that temptation very often in any given field (although the steady push to express mathematical articles at the highest possible level of abstraction is a recurrent instance), much less in titling pages; the only example I could give would be controversial. Nevertheless, these four words are a useful reminder not to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm down w/ that. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there some policy of more general scope where this principle is expressed? There ought to be - it doesn't apply just to naming articles. --Kotniski (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's in one of the five pillars; but I tend to quote this page when necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * From the above, it sounds like this phrase should be understood as favoring "normal English speakers over jargon-imbued so-called 'editors' whose primary language is no longer English, but Wikipedia-ese." I'm not convinced that "titles should be intelligible to normal English speakers" requires restatement here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming_conventions_(geographic names) says "All Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is.". This is a convention that I am on the record as disagreeing with. I have tried twice to overturn it, and both times failed dismally. I failed because the convention has strong consensus support amongst editors of Australian geography articles, and is universally applied there. It is beyond dispute that the decision to predisambiguate in this case is an optimisation aimed at editors over readers. Colonel Warden and I agree that this is silly; apparently everyone in this discussion does. But I know for a fact that many Australian editors think the convention is great. Therefore, though I wholeheartedly agree with the phrase "should be optimized for readers over editors", I doubt if it represents consensus. Hesperian 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually consistency has advantages for readers too; if it did not, the Australisn editors would be debunked by the rest of us, who are readers in Auxtralisn matters. If Meekatharra, Western Australia were not disambiguated, and Austin, Western Australia were, any reader looking at the list in Category:Towns in Western Australia would be entitled to wonder whether there was some deep significance to the difference, when there is none.


 * Whether this advantage outweighs Conciseness is an issue of balance, on which you and the Colonel disagree with other editors. With luck, this phrasing may permit you two to put a more persuasive case to the rest of them, focusing (as both sides should) on the advantage to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Name of articles
From "Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" to "Articles are generally named in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" Oh so some articles can be named in such a way that it is obscure to most English English speakers. The older wording is clearer. -- PBS (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This addition: "This is not understood as a simple "majority rules" principle; for example, consensus does not favor the systematic use of American over British English." is not needed it is covered in WP:NC. It just complicates a clear and concise paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the aim of keeping this clear and simple if possible. We don't have to repeat every point in evey paragraph.--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This would be a principle; at some point we should recognize that we can't always comply with that principle and maintain Uniqueness (there are how many towns most easily recognized as Springfield?). But in stating the principle, we need not weasel. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

However, we could at some point state the principle that WP:NC instantiates - a combination of civility among editors and inclusiveness for readers; it's a good thing and consensus policy - but it doesn't follow from the six principles we have now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... that could get misused by those who would have us avoid doing anything that might offend anybody...--Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with clear and simple as well. However, I strongly disagree with prescriptive over descriptive wording, and I do think it's important to qualify that COMMONNAME does not mean majority rules. I don't care about citing ENGVAR as a particular example; it's just what came to my mind. PBS, was it everything about my edit you disagreed with, or just parts? There were several changes, and it's not clear to me which ones bother you. Do you think the imperative "Name articles in accordance with..." language is good. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of input on this page that such a commandment is contrary to policy and practice. What do people think about this point? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But Common Name does mean the majority (of reliable sources) rule; when the majority do not rule, that is because we are no longer (in the given case) following Common Name but some other principle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know PBS's views, but I dislike both generally and the passive voice. The reason for generally would be to explicitly acknowledge that values conflict, which we have already done. How about "Good titles name articles in acoordance..."? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not married to any particular wording, but I will probably continue to insist that imperative "do this, don't do that" is worse than descriptive "this is what we do, check it out". I remember, from when I read through some naming conventions back in '03, descriptions of what was done, followed by examples of articles named that way, and often with examples of exceptions as well. It was succinct, clear, concrete, descriptive, and almost certainly idealized in my memory. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus see above my major objection is "generally" -- PBS (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is a misunderstanding here. There is a difference in meaning between the sentence either side of the "mdash;" The first makes the stateme nt "Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" This is a very old part of this page and does not say use common names to name an article. The second part of the sentence says "usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English." which is also accurate. Is anyone taking part in this conversation arguing that we should ever name an article by a name which the greatest number of English speakers would not most easily recognize? The only time I can think that we do that is to do with national varieties of English, and that is explained in another section. Is there anyone who disagrees that usually it is the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources? Given this difference in meaning between the two halves of the sentences, I see nothing wrong with "usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English"


 * I see no advantage in the wording "A good title will name the article [with] what" over "Name articles in accordance with what" as I think that the latter and long standing text is clearer. -- PBS (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PBS, can you suggest a wording that is more descriptive than prescriptive, and which works for you? I don't like going back to "Name articles in accordance with..." just because specific descriptive phrasings aren't quite musical. Can't we work with this notion of describing best practice? My issue with "verifiable reliable sources" is that the sources are not "verifiable". Facts are verifiable IN reliable sources. My sense of semantics revolts at "verifiable reliable sources", and someone above in the RFC complained about it as well. It's just not good English. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize isn't a statement; it's a command. I don't mind this particularly myself, but it does contribute to the view that this is a set of rules, not of principles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize is ambiguous because it is so easily debatable. It appears to be an invitation for conflict with both sides providing references, but none of them identify the greatest number..easily recognize; only that the term is recognizable or is used. This is one of the reasons that reliable sources be used i.e. what does the expert/reliable source state. I am not sure I can identify a downside to have references support the name. Articles do not get lost, readers will always find their topic of interest. IF Wikipedia does nothing else, let it be a source of accurate knowledge and not a collection of opinion pieces designed by the lowest common denominator. -- Storm  Rider  20:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that's what was a stake here. Perhaps I should be shouting more? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This policy seems now to be written on cases where the choice is between two names (do we use 'colour' or 'color'). Do we realise that there are cases where there are way more than two (drug names?), all used in different parts of the world, and where 'smaller' countries may have actually the largest number of English reading people using that name due to monopoly positions or local regulations, while the large majority of the world will not even recognise such a name?  Finding majority is then simply impossible, leads to names no-one might recognise, or leads to a significant number of pages where brandnames of one major company are used.  I suggest to follow the local guidelines for the naming.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. At present the convention says "Since these are distinct criteria, they can conflict with one another; in such cases, the questions about article names are resolved by discussion towards building consensus, always with these principles in mind." The whole point of specific (i.e. "local") guidelines is that they represent established consensus on a specific issue or within a given field. The problem with the above quote is we are forgetting that consensus may already exist. More often than not the solution is to check the specific guideline to find out what consensus is, and then follow it. There is only a need to engage in discussion if there is no consensus on some point (always remembering that consensus can change). How shall we proceed? Hesperian 06:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How is this for a start, Dirk? Hesperian 07:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a link to the things below. It already gets better.  The drugs were an example I know about, to a lesser extend it also goes for the almost 6000 chemical compounds (something as simple as Methane comes according to the Chemical Abstracts Service already to 11 (one duplicate), what the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry says I don't know).  I am sure that similar will be available for trees, materials, &c.  I see your point, Hesperian, will re-read the part above as well.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Precise
I still have trouble with the precise paragraph:


 * Precise. Good article titles should indicate the subject and scope of the article; readers should not have to read into the article to find which of several meanings of the title is the actual subject. The scope of articles does change; when it does, and the old title does not still fit, rename it.

The related idea has always been "be precise when necessary". There was never any need for precision in WP naming except to resolve conflicts with other uses. The above implies much more than that, and for which there is very little precedence in actual article naming, AFAIK, much less any history in written policy or guidelines for it. Including the principle of precision - seeking precision beyond merely resolving conflict with other actual uses - sets up for needless conflicts. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much more, but what more there is is to the benefit of the encyclopedia: Great Persecution probably has a primary meaning of the FA Diocletianic Persecution; but which is more helpful to the reader? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (to B2C's comment)...which is a long-winded way of saying that titles need to be precise enough to be unambiguous, but no more so. Knepflerle (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Precise enough to be unambiguous, but no more so"... yeah. Somebody write that down. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a little better, but even the first sentence has no basis: "Good article titles should indicate the subject and scope of the article". There simply is no precedence for that. Article titles indicate the name of the article topic, whether doing so indicates the subject and scope of the article is rarely if ever a factor. Then, if the name alone is not unambiguous, the title needs to be made more precise (usually with dab info in parenthesis) but in order to meet WP's unique technical requirement, not to indicate the subject and scope of the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Occasionally, such as when you have multiple articles in a tightly related area, then the titles must indicate the scope. For example, compare "Introduction to genetics" to the more technical "Genetics" article.  For simpler subjects (e.g., Lion) the scope is 'everything', which does not need to be specified.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, be only as precise as necessary to avoid collision with other uses. That applies to adding additional contextual information to the title.  But the vast majority of titles do not indicate scope, and many do not clearly indicate the subject, but are still good.  The statement that both must be indicated in order for a title to be "good" is not true at all.   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A good example is where a name is the most common name of both a company and the product that it sells. e.g. Coca Cola. If we treat company and product together, then the single most common name of both is the best name for the article, because its dual use matches the dual scope. But if we treat them separately, then at least one of them needs a more precise name, so that the article scopes are distinguishable from their titles e.g. "The Coca Cola Company" for the company. So WhatamIdoing is right that we need to indicate the scope sometimes, but Born2cycle is right that the "sometimes" is in fact whenever the topic is butting up against another topic that it needs to be disambiguated from.
 * So I think Born2cycle's point is sustained here: article titles only indicate the scope to the extent necessary to remove collision with other topics.
 * However there is one point that I don't want to lose here: we provide the scope necessary to remove collisions with other notable topics, irrespective of whether or not those other notable topics have articles. So the company article should be named The Coca Cola Company even if no-one had gotten around to writing an article about the drink. (One might counter that, in the absense of a drink article, the company article should be rescoped to cover both, but that is a content decision not a naming decision, and I am strenuously opposed to article content scope being dictated by article title.)
 * Hesperian 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "We provide the scope necessary to remove collisions with other notable topics, irrespective of whether or not those other notable topics have articles. ". To my understanding that is not correct.  All that matters is whether there is a conflict with another topic actually covered in Wikipedia.  Potential conflicts some time in the indefinite future don't count. For example, assuming X is more commonly used to refer to a given topic than is X ScopeA, "It should be at  and not at  because X could some day refer to X ScopeB (which currently does not exist) is an argument to make  a dab page and to create at least a stub for, not an argument to put the article at , redirect  to , and leave X ScopeB unused.  If X ScopeB does not exist and there is no plan to create it shortly, and there are no conflicts for X, then the article in question should be at X, not at .    This is because any commonly used name of any notable topic that can be conceived should at least have an article stub, or a redirect to one. This is addressed in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:
 * When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. .
 * --Born2cycle (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * II think the "covered in Wikipedia" part of that quote is a mistake, and ought to be removed. Nonetheless it is a quote from a guideline that prima facie reflects consensus, and I do not wish to extend this discussion into a new theatre right now, so I shall concede the point and withdraw my final paragraph. This leaves me in the unprecedented position of agreeing 100% with something you said. :-) Hesperian 05:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's only one other article, and if is primary, then we don't even need a dab page. That's covered by a standard hatnote: "for Scope B, see ." Of course, until X ScopeB is written, we wouldn't do that. This is just a somewhat pedantic point; I'm not disagreeing with the above. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple naming algorithm
The naming algorithm for most articles goes like this.


 * 1) If the article topic has a clear most commonly used name in English that is unique or primary, that is the title.
 * 2) If the article topic has a clear most commonly used name that is ambiguous and not primary, then disambiguate per WP:D, including considering more specific naming guidelines when available and appropriate.
 * 3) If the article topic doesn't have a clear most commonly used name, but several candidates, then pick one by consensus process (follow the principles as currently outlined on this page in that process).

Many articles are named by Step 1 alone (that is, the obvious name identified by the original article creator is it), many more are named by Step 2. Only relatively few require going to Step 3, and only for Step 3 are the principles currently outlined on this page even relevant.

This algorithm needs to be reflected here at WP:NC, because this is how almost all, if not all, Wikipedia articles have been named, and continue to be named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk • contribs)


 * The primary name, among non-specialists, for myocardial infarction is "heart attack", which we reject because it is imprecise/not unique (lots of things get called "heart attacks"). Your rule (which says "unique or primary") would have us use an imprecise/non-unique/ambiguous name simply because it is the "primary" choice (of non-specialists).  This outcome does not seem desirable.  Furthermore, under rule two, names that are ambiguous but primary, or non-ambiguous but decidedly not primary do not benefit from disambiguation.
 * What constitutes "clear" and "most commonly used" (by whom?) and how clarity differs from "uniqueness" and how common use differs from "primary" use is unclear.
 * I feel kind of picky in pointing this out, but I want to make a particular point: writing policy is hard because you have to get it right, all the way down to the details of "and" and "or" (and even whether "or" means "xor" or "either or").  It may be possible to re-draft this proposal to be functional, but it will require some work.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with WhatamIdoing. This is not an accurate reflection of what we do. It is an overly simplistic algorithm that reflects what Born2cycle wants us to do. There are countless examples where the above algorithm is not followed. Royalty and nobility, for example. Ships; e.g. RMS Titanic. Medical conditions, as demonstrated above. Localities; e.g. Meekatharra, Western Australia. In some of these cases I think the above algorithm would lead to a better outcome. But it certainly does not reflect our current practices, as is being claimed. Hesperian 01:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with WAID here. What is a heart attack is it ( acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, unstable angina )?  Common names are often not specific.  They also often represent symptoms rather than conditions.  A sore throat is not the same as viral pharyngitis, chemical pharyngitis, strep throat.  The common names are often used for symptoms which than branch down to actual conditions see head ache which than discusses all the different types.
 * Attempt to enforce common names will alienate a lot of medical editors and will make many pages confusing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please enforce common names. Or at least common enough names when there are disambig problems. I think myocardial infarction and RMS Titanic are more common than people think, so they aren't good examples. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you are referring to? The common name to whom?  Should we use stomach ache or abdominal pain, should we use brain surgeon or neurosurgeon.  In these two example the current name is the proper one and should not be changed just because good may find more hits for the first rather than the second.  This should be decided by the main wikiproject who develops the page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I always assumed that the algorithm was to choose a name you recognize, find where it's used in a blog, and call it a day.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with WAID, in principle. If the most commonly used name in question is not unique or primary (e.g., "heart attack"), then you use the commonly used name that is unique or primary with respect to that topic (e.g., myocardial infarction). That's all part of Step 1. However, I must say, I just went to Heart attack expecting to find either a general article or a dab page. Instead, I found it simply redirected to Myocardial infarction. That's broken. If that redirect is correct, that implies consensus agreement that the primary topic for Heart attack is the topic of that article. And surely Heart attack is used more commonly to refer to it. If the most commonly used name, Heart attack, is truly primary for that topic, then the article needs to be moved to it (Heart attack). If there is no primary topic for Heart attack, then Heart attack needs to be a dab page listing the topics to which it commonly refers. This is not the place to argue which way to go, only that either way would be consistent with WP naming policy and conventions, but the current situation is not. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Another point is that if the most commonly used name for the topic currently at myocardial infarction is Heart attack, then it should be moved to Heart attack because that is the name "readers are most likely to search" and "to which editors will most naturally link from other articles". --Born2cycle (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Need I weigh in again? B2C is speaking to what he wishes the naming conventions were, not what they are or have ever been.  That being said, if an article topic has a name which is clearly the primary name for the topic, and is unique, it should generally be used.  But the change of this policy from a set of rules to a set of criteria means that this rule should not exist anywhere in Wikipedia, even in an essay, without exceptions (defining in a subarticle, consistant with one of the other naming criteria, and established by consensus) being noted.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And thus exceptions become the rule. Sigh.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No. ALL rules have exceptions. That's one of the paradoxes of creation. Ignoring that is what stops things working. Wikipedia has 3 million articles. There is no way that all problems that arise in assigning names to these can all be successfully covered by one top-down set of criteria, let alone by one rule. That is why we have all the naming conventions, and why those naming conventions cover the best practices that have been agreed by wikipedia editors in the differing fields to handle these concerns. Those conventions are not restricted artificially from above by an over-riding doctrinaire rule, merely for the sake of demanding compliance with that rule. "Use common names" is a very useful tool on most occasions, but that's what it is - a tool - not an idol to be worshipped.  Xan  dar   23:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course all rules have exceptions, but the exceptions should be relatively rare. The practical way to keep exceptions relatively rare in Wikipedia is to allow them only on a per article basis.  What is being promoted here is completely different: it is about making exceptions for entire categories of articles, without any restrictions whatsoever.  That's how exceptions to the rule become the rule.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, no. You want exception to be rare? You got it. By rewriting the "rules" to be broader, more flexible and more inclusive, we have greatly reduced the need for exceptions to be made.
 * We make exceptions in order to bridge a gap between the "rule" and actual practices. We agree, then, that having lots of exceptions is a problem: it indicates that the gap between "rule" and practices is too great. I guess where is disagree is this: you want to close the gap by bringing practice to the "rule", whereas I (and the rest of us, I think) want to close it by bringing the "rule" to practice.
 * Hesperian 00:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not the distinction. That's like observing an unsupervised kindergarten playground and determining the proper rules of behavior based on how the kids are behaving.  Great, we can establish a rule against firing real guns at each other, since that that is the one behavior not engaged in.  I mean, if you want some consistency, then you can't establish that by simply declaring the current inconsistency to be consistency. What we have now in Wikipedia naming is mostly consistency, but quite a lot of inconsistency too.  But, yeah, it's all relative.  Consistency as measured by what standard?  Relative to what?  With lax or non-existent standards, just about anything can be considered consistent.  That seems to be the way you want this to go... Let's loosen up the rules until all the current names are consistent with the rules, so nothing has to change. Never mind that leaves little if any useful guidance on how to name new articles.  But if we are going to have a standard, it's fair to ask, why?  I suspect we agree that consistency for the sake of being consistent with some arbitrary standard is pointless.  Striving for consistency with the chosen standard has to achieve some kind of benefit, or there is no point in having that standard, I think.  This is exactly why I advocate the "use the most common name" standard.  By having articles named consistently with that standard, we achieve the benefit of having Wikipedia article titles identify the most common name used to refer that topic.  I see that as a tangible and unique benefit - no other reference does that, and we can provide it without, ironically, violating WP:NOR.  In fact, we mostly already do that, except for those categories of articles where well-meaning editors who did not value this WP benefit chose to name those articles differently.  Why?  To what end?  What is the benefit achieved for the reader?  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't want to declare the current inconsistency to be consistency. I think we all want to look at the bloody great mess of naming that is out there, figure out what works and what doesn't, get some idea of what people are thinking when they make good sensible naming decisions, and articulate the basic principles, so as to quickly get newbs up to speed and hopefully discourage some of the stupider naming decisions.
 * As an engineer, you'll understand the model fitting metaphor. A horribly complicated model that perfectly fits noisy data is completely bloody useless. We don't want a naming convention that predicts and endorses every single naming decision we've ever made. We agree on that. But a beautifully elegant and parsimonious model that doesn't fit the data at all, is also completely bloody useless. We don't want an idealistic naming convention that completely fails to explain the decisions that people are actually making out there. I contend this describes your "use the most common name" convention—a beautiful, elegant, parsimonious, idealistic convention that fails utterly to capture the complexity of our day-to-day naming decisions. The perfect model is one that perfectly fits the signal hiding within the noise, without fitting to the noise at all. That's what we're trying to do here: to tease out the principles underlying the vast majority of our naming decisions, without being sucked into recording the day-to-day background noise of bad individual decisions.
 * Hesperian 01:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorsed names
For a long time I've been tossing around the idea of names that are official, canonical, standardised, etcetera. I think what it comes down to is that they are endorsed by some authoritative external body.

There can be no doubt that external endorsement carries weight in naming on Wikipedia:
 * Bird articles follow the IOC World Bird List, with few exceptions;
 * In regions where an authoritative gazetteer is publicly available, geographic locality and feature articles almost always use the gazetted name, with exceedingly few exceptions;
 * Published works nearly always use the published title, even if the work is better known by some other name e.g. "Metallica (album)" not "The Black Album".
 * Stars are an excellent example: use the traditional name if one has been approved by the International Astronomical Union; else use the Bayer designation if one exists; else use the Flamsteed designation if one exists; else use the Draper number or the Gliese number, whichever is more commonly used.
 * Articles on chemical elements, many compounds, and isotopes are named in accordance with the recommendations of the IUPAC.
 * In medicine, we consult the World Health Organization International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD 10) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) on disease names; we use the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) of drugs; and we title human anatomy articles in accordance with Terminologia Anatomica.

Arguably the self-identifying names controversy raging elsewhere fits in here too. Those who are arguing for recognition of self-identifying names are essentially arguing that the fact that (for example) "Myanmar" is endorsed by the government and people of that country should count for something. And they bring further supporting arguments by recourse to the UN and other authorities; this fits in here too.

I think it is beyond dispute that many people consider endorsement by external authorities an important consideration when naming articles in fields where such authorities exist. Is this another principle, or is it a non-obvious application of one or more principles that we have already articulated.

Hesperian 02:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking that providing a summary statement of the above would strengthen the understanding of reliable sources? There could be some argument that the IOC World Bird list and similar organizations are a more legitimate source than groups comparable to the United Nations. The logic would be that the first has a hand in the actual official naming of a bird (this is an assumption) whereas the United Nations only recognizes a nation as a participant. It would seem that precise definition of the third party endorsement would make the concept more effective and remove future potential argument. Just some thoughts.-- Storm  Rider  02:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If this gets included at all, it would be a brief one-or-two-sentence statement of principle. Deciding upon how to balance the use of endorsed nomenclature against other principles like "use the most common name" would be a matter for discussion towards consensus. Hesperian 02:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose making this a principle: this is pedantry. If the names of the official body have become widely used, then this provision is unnecessary; if they have not, it is undesirable. (If nothing is common usage, then they are probably most common in the absence of anything else.) There was a long debate at WT:MOSNUM - one of my reasons for my opinion of the place - about whether we should use Kibibytes, because some standard-making body has said everybody should. This was eventually laughed out as mandating incomprehensibility - so should this be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like some reliable sources. They shouldn't be given any more weight than that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But is that what people are thinking when they choose these names? When you choose the gazetted name as the title of your new locality stub, what is going through your mind? Are you consciously trying to reflect usage in reliable sources; or are you consciously trying to use the most common name; or are you consciously choosing that name because that is its name because that is what the gazetteer says its name is? I would argue that the last of these is the correct one. Hesperian 02:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And the gazeteer is a reliable source, not an official one. When I start an article (rarely necessary nowadays), I follow the usage of the reliable source where I found out about the subject that has led me to a redlink. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources to primary sources [1]. Resources that define or specify "official, canonical, standardised" names, in the context of determining names that people are most likely to recognize, are arguably primary sources, and should be given far less preference than secondary sources, like usage in the NY Times or the London Times. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I reject that premise in toto. Primary sources are not used when interpretations can be different or the meaning is ambiguous, which would not be the case in this situation. More strongly, use newspapers to solely define common language is exactly the type of logic I think is a detriment to Wikipedia because it often appeals to the lowest common denominator. Secondary sources should meet the standards of reliable sources. I may have misunderstood your position and that you were not postulating that newspapers are the "go to" source. Peer reviewed, academic sources is where I go first. Newspapers though possible for a source are not a preferred source, IMHO. -- Storm  Rider  06:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't stress, Storm Rider. Everyone rejects this particular premise. This particular unique point of view is what makes Born2cycle so special. ;-) Hesperian 07:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This point is also reflected in the Manual of Style, which at MOS says: "When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too."  Xan  dar   10:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another flaky guideline, written by a bunch of politically correct editors; it is generally ignored, like the rest of those essays. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinions on that guideline are well known, however they are not shared by most other editors.  Xan  dar   23:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the case of bird names, the example Sun Parakeet/Sun Conure comes to mind. A lot of principles have been thrown around in that debate, including COMMONNAME, reliable sources, reliable sources in one domain versus another, experts from the actual continent where these birds live versus experts across the globe, scientists who study birds versus people who keep them as pets, the moral acceptability of keeping them as pets, etc., etc., etc. Just another example to chew on. Sometimes third-party endorsements, independently considered reliable, disagree with each other. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)