Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 17

Varieties of English
The mention of Lyons led me to look up the context in WP:NCGN.
 * Where, as with Lyon, different national varieties of the English language spell a foreign name differently, we should also consider our guidance on national varieties of English, which would have articles in British English call the city Lyons, articles in American English Lyon'', and the article itself use either, consistently. Articles should not be moved from one national variety to the other without good reasons; our principle of most common name does not mean "use American, because there are more Americans in the English speaking world".

Should we make this point here, instead of having our specific guidelines appeal to ENGVAR? (Some other example than Lyons would be appropriate to the wider scope here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fauna and flora
Is it necessary to have so much detail about the fauna and flora guidance here? Can we replace it with just the links to the flora and fauna NC's, perhaps with a very concise summary? (And if anyone says this is something to do with the distinction between policy and guidelines I shall scream...)--Kotniski (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an explicit exception to the general rule for capitalization, so it needs to be here until they are harmonized.


 * The distinction between policy and guideline (please don't scream) would suggest moving the first sentence up to Lowercase words and leaving the rest to the projects; but we may want to rethink the general guidance as well; it's not generally applicable as it stands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cups hands to mouth, takes deep breath... Oh wait. You said please don't scream. Never mind. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to scream quietly... Is this somethining that's the subject of ongoing discussion, or has it been decided? If the guidance is settled, then surely we just mention at the general rule for capitalization that there are different rules for fauna and flora, and link to them? We don't have to have (and certainly don't have) every exception written out explicitly on this page.--Kotniski (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know; the examples given seem to be followed, and birds are capped (I checked Least Tern). How should this sort of exception be generalized? Follow usage in a given field, with birds as an example? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Haddock's eyes
I see Born2cycle has introduced
 * Titles should indicate what the name of the corresponding article topic is, and make Wikipedia easy to use. Article titles do this if they are: 

Does this remind anyone of the discussion in Through the Looking Glass summarized here?

Perhaps more importantly, it makes the unempirical assertion that topics always have only one name (otherwise the name is ill-defined). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How odd. I just left exactly the same allusion on Born2cycle's user talk page. My main concern is that our article Haddocks' Eyes is located at what the name of the song is called, not what the name of the song is. Hesperian 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what the name really is, we use the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of the article in question, which is exactly Haddocks' Eyes in this case. This makes my point.  Who knows what the name of something "really" is?  How do you even determine that?  Does usage in reliable source tell you what the name "really" is?  Really?  Are you sure?  How do you know?  I call BS.  What we can determine, in most cases, is the name most commonly used to refer to the topic in question. That's why it's such a good choice.   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of tricky reasoning there. Neither "Usage in reliable sources" nor "most commonly used" tells you what the name really is. They are both algorithms for finding a suitable name. You can't dismiss one of the grounds you've given above without dismissing the other too. But the point PMAnderson is raising here has nothing to do with reliable sources. It is about whether it is appropriate to refer to "the name", as if every topic is in possession of a referent deserving of having the definite article stuck in front of it. Hesperian 00:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Whoa, Hesperian made the same comparison on my talk page. Did you guys really come up with this independently??? If so... that's kind of creepy.
 * We clearly have common background; probably the essay "Symbolic Notation, Haddocks' Eyes and the Dog-Walking Ordinance", by Ernest Nagel; moderately well-known, since it was reprinted in James Newman, four-volume World of Mathematics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'd love to say it was Nagel, but in my case it think it may have been this :-) Hesperian 00:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And on the subject of common background, both "Hesperian" and "Septentrionalis" are terms of Latin origin, with directional meaning in English (western and northern respectively). What gives, man? Are you my sockpuppet or what? Hesperian 01:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Revealed at last! I'm his evil twin; this explains why we are (I gather) editing from different continents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It makes the unempirical assertion that topics always have only one name. Not at all.  The word "should" implies sometimes it's not possible, including when a given topic has more than one name.  However, now that you mention it, it would be more helpful and accurate to say, "the most commonly used name" rather than "the name".  Thanks!.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Absolutely not. You're back in the business of putting "most commonly used" on a pedestal. There is clearly no consensus for that, and arguably consensus against it. Hesperian 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please revert yourself immediately, and do not do that again! Hesperian 00:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I already made such a fix here, and Born2cycle seemed to have no objection to it. If Born2cycle objects to "should tell the reader what the corresponding articles are about", and we object to "should indicate what the name of the corresponding article topic is", then perhaps "should indicate the topic of the article" is a reasonable compromise. I would not be averse to "should name or otherwise indicate the topic of the article". I also would not be averse to "should name the topic of the article", since, inevitably, that is what a title does. Hesperian 00:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're okay with "should name the topic" then isn't "should reflect the name of the topic" better since naming a topic implies coming up with something original (like naming your car) and is arguably a violation of WP:NOR (of course, that's exactly what Fixed-wing aircraft is, an abomination if you ask me, but at least a per article exception). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not happy with wording that implies "invent a name". I am happy with wording that implies "apply a name". I am not happy with wording that says "apply the name". Hesperian 01:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Back on track now; thankyou. With respect to "Articles titles should name or describe the subject of the article", I believe there is very strong consensus that we should use a name if it is available. This wording might suggest that we go with descriptions if we don't like a name. Hesperian 01:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But there are many topics, like all the list articles, where a descriptive title is necessary (or Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, from WP:LEAD). I have no objection to making Hesperian's point, but I'm not sure the start of the intro is the right place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done (under Concise). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we choose names rather than descriptions because they are concise. I think we use them because they are the perfect starting point with respect to precision.
 * Whilst casting about for an illuminating example, I discovered that "Einstein" is at least as recognizable as "Albert Einstein", at least as easy to find, more concise, probably preferred by reliable sources, and sufficiently precise. The only remaining principle is consistency, and I don't believe we prefer the latter name solely for that reason. Hesperian 03:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is both precision and conciseness (we use first names for consistency - although trying to remember first names when there is no redirect from the surname is a major annoyance). 1921 Nobel Laureate in Physics (or even inventor of relativity) is more precise than Einstein; you have forgotten his cousin, Alfred Einstein, the music critic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my point with respect to preciseness. Alf is irrelevant. If "Einstein" weren't sufficiently precise, then we wouldn't have a redirect from it. Since we're supposed to be no more precise than necessary, that's a win for "Einstein" over "Albert Einstean", which, by virtue of being more precise than a name that is sufficiently precise, is too precise (I'm channelling B2c here.) You may have convinced me that "we use first names for consistency". Hesperian 04:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not irrelevant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Glorious indeed; but I'm still not going to wallow in it. Hesperian 05:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy
I just noticed that we list "recognizable", "easy to find", "precise", "concise", "consistent" and "unique", but not "accurate". Don't we try to ensure that the title of the article actually is the name of what the article's about? Is that covered under precision? Thoughts? -GTBacchus(talk) 10:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think accuracy is one of the most important aspects of naming.  Xan  dar   10:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's covered by some combination of the other principles, Xandar? -GTBacchus(talk) 10:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up quite a few times. I think there is something very important here, else I wouldn't have repeatedly raised the Metallica (album)-v-The Black Album example. "Metallica" is the name of the album, and any other name would be wrong. Nonetheless I have been convinced by others that accuracy is a very slippery concept indeed. Usually when we say that one name is more accurate than another, what we mean is that some authority has declared itself in favour of a particular name. In the extreme case, this may be the author of a book, who surely has the moral authority to decide upon its name (but even in this case we might reject it). At the other end of the spectrum we have self-appointed standards bodies who make arbitrary and unilateral decisions about the common names of mammals, and expect everyone else to follow them. If you turn it on its head, the question arises whether we would ever reject a grossly inaccurate name that everyone uses. Arguably we do at gravitation (as opposed to the more common but incorrect "gravity"), but this one example is swamped by the billions of counter-examples: sheoaks are not female oaks; starfish are not fish; and there is nothing French about French Fries. It is this mess that prompted me to start talking about above. Hesperian 11:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Another aspect of accuracy is scope (or circumscription, as the taxonomists call it). As I pointed out above wrt Paris, its department, and its arrondisement, and as I have pointed out before with Joshua tree being a name for Yucca brevifolia subsp. brevifolia rather than the species, a name can be inaccurate by specifying a superset or subset of the article subject.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is part of precision rather than accuracy. Hesperian 13:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we articulate both as one principle: "Accuracy and precision"? They're not the same, but in the same ballpark. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Could do. The argument that we follow usage regardless of whether it is accurate or not is pretty strong, but I still think there is evidence that editors are taking accuracy/correctness into account when naming pages. For example, without recourse to accuracy/correctness, it is pretty hard to explain why we chose the title University of Oxford over the much more common, more concise and equally precise "Oxford University". Hesperian 14:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that Burma shhhhh! is where it is for reasons of accuracy. The main recurring argument for that name is that "Myanmar" is imposed by an illegitimate government. (?!?) I say that's the main argument for the current title, because the COMMONNAME argument cuts both ways, depending how you determine commonality. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a balance of political arguments; the other side being that the "self-determination" of a Third World Country should be respected at all costs. Underneath these conflicting noises, there is a reasonable case that Burma, like North Korea, is still the prevalent English usage - including a BBC article (one of the sources) which says they use Burma because more readers will understand them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't think we need to debate this point here. I agree that the political argument cuts both ways, but that's not what I'm talking about remotely. All I'm trying to say is (A) a case can be made for either name based on COMMONNAME, and (B) argument that seemed, in my observation of the debate to carry the day, was that editors here don't consider Myanmar to be accurate. Maybe many people are swayed by the commonness of "Burma", but many people aren't. In my experience as a student and looker-at-maps, Myanmar is more common. It is not cut-and-dry; that's all. Please don't debate the name of that article here. My only point is that accuracy is a consideration in the minds of editors here. I'm not saying that Burma is more or less accurate, just that a good handful of real, live Wikipedians perceive it to be more accurate, and perceive that to be a consideration that matters. Am I wrong? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have difficulty imagining a claim of "accuracy" that is not fundamentally a claim of "it expresses my PoV"; certainly both sides in the Burma debate did that.
 * I suppose there are cases of downright error: "Giuseppe Roncalli became John XXIII, not John XXI", but these fall into two classes:
 * Following the usage of reliable sources ("See, all these books call him John XXIII"
 * Pushing a private opinion against the judgment of the sources ("No, he was really John XXI, because there was no real John XXI, or XXII"; arguable, but against consensus - in an alternate universe, another pope could have chosen differently on the same facts, but Roncalli didn't.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Following that line of reasoning, would you contend that "accuracy" is not, or should not be, one of our naming principles? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would: Verifiability, not truth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a little scary for an encyclopedia. I would be on the other side (support accuracy) because it limits conversation. What is the name of the individual, country, etc. It removes value judgments from the equation and focuses the discussion solely on reality as defined by reliable references. In the case of Burma, there would be no conversation about what is a legitimate form of government or not. In the case of an album, it is the name of the album, etc. To me accuracy simplifies the discussion about choosing the proper title. -- Storm  Rider  21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you might be happier in some other project. The first paragraph of one of our core policies says:


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

That is our fundamental protection against bias and censorship; it is a gamble, but so far a successful one. We have mirrors that choose otherwise; if they are more successful, so be it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I think you're right. Saying that "accuracy" or "correctness" is one of our naming guidelines indicates that we're shooting for some kind of correctness over and above what we can verify in reliable sources. At that point, we should be writing scripture, not an encyclopedia. The fact remains that people often make arguments in naming disputes that are based on perceived correctness. What to do about that is an interesting question. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are not reading my edit so I went back and put in the bold letters to make it absolutely clear; it is impossible to have verifiability without having reliable references or sources. Truth has nothing to do with it, but it was a nice smokescreen. The moment we are not interested in accuracy (accuracy has nothing to do with truth, accuracy deals with facts as identified by experts) and we just want to play with opinions, there is no credibility. -- Storm  Rider  22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If this means that we should follow the usage of reliable sources, we already say that; if it means something more, what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If one defines "accuracy" to mean "accuracy as determined by reliable sources", then there is no problem, right? If one defines "accuracy" to mean something else - and many editors do - then there can be some disagreement. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Accuracy is the consideration of using reliable sources, not just as something to count and weigh against each other in bundles, but to ensure that a name used is actually the correct descriptor. An example I used earlier in the argument on self-identification is Canadian Navy which is the most common name in English for a body which actually redirects to Canadian Forces Maritime Command. The latter is the more accurate name, since the Canadian forces are not separate but an integrated force with varied "commands". Accuracy is also a reason we prefer Indigenous Australians to the more popular "aborigines".   Xan  dar   22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it? If you click on Aborigines, you'll find that it can apply to many groups of people, and is therefore not used per precision. Additionally, modern reliable sources don't call those people "Aborigines", so doing so would go against sources. I'm not sure that accuracy really is the reason, except insofar as it dovetails with sources and precision. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, also, "Aborigines" isn't inaccurate at all. It is one thing to say "Mormon Church" or "Canadian Navy" is inaccurate - those are actual institutions that have official names.  There is no objectively "correct" name for indigenous Australians.  I think the key issue for all of this is to follow the usage of the best reliable sources. john k (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, accuracy would be valuable in controversial naming conflicts where value judgments so easily influence editors. For example, the discussion of the name of the nation of Myanmar. The question of properly formed government is superfluous and is more properly addressed in the body of the the article itself; it has nothing to do with naming. All reliable sources would say that the current nation of Myanmar is called Myanmar. That is accurate, devoid of value judgments, strictly neutral, and recognizing the reality of the nation for decades.
 * "Truth" has nothing to do with Wikipedia and never has. Your recent edit, PM, was a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that only existed in your own mind. You seem to edit defensively and against specific individuals without thought to the process at large. Before editing again, please consult with us and we will save you the time and effort. -- Storm  Rider  22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no need to personalize the discussion by describing other editors here as "defensive", and making "knee-jerk edits" against a "problem that only exists in their own mind", or as editing "without thought to the process at large". Unless you can tell me what number I'm thinking of, you can't read minds. Let's keep this professional, on-topic, and non-personalized, eh? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, GT, let's look at the progress of edits:
 * 1)  I state that accuracy is important and scary to leave out of the conversation and I clearly state, "focuses the discussion solely on reality as defined by reliable references"
 * 2)  PM then proceeds to to somehow think I want to include "truth" into the conversation by stating, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". This was a knee-jerk reaction to my statement without understanding what I clearly stated.
 * 3)  PM then edits the article to read, "In adopting the usage of reliable sources in what to call something, we follow our wider principle of verifiability, not truth."  It is a little difficult for me to think this is anything but a knee-jerk response to a problem that is only in PM's mind. Do you have another explanation for his edit to the article or his response to me?
 * 4)  PM has a history of doing this type of editing. It invites conflict, it is insulting to others, and it defeats any cooperative spirit that existed.

It makes little sense to not call a spade when it screams at you. The objective of calling it is to make it stop, to change behavior, and to encourage what was a cooperative conversation. -- Storm  Rider  23:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * StormRider, the trouble with your "spade" (nice racist allusion) strategy is that it doesn't work. Maybe the "goal" of calling a spade is to make it stop, but that's effective 0% of the time. What it does is make the gardening implement argue back at you, and then we're even further off-topic, listening to people bitch about each other instead of getting anything done. If you had the power over humans to actually change someone's behavior simply by telling them they're being bad, I'd give you an effing Nobel Prize. Since you don't, try something effective instead. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well, let me be accurate.
 * I answered Bacchus's question with a famous and long-standing aphorism, deeply rooted in core policy. That was where "truth" came in; despite Storm Rider's snit, it was not addressed to him.
 * Storm Rider called that answer scary, and expressed opposition to it; I answered, quoting the context in full. Anyone who does oppose "Verifiability, not truth" is unlikely to be happy or productive in Wikipedia space, or arguing Wikipedia policy; anyone who misunderstood it, and it can be misunderstood, is free to rephrase remarks made under a misapprehension.
 * I am tired of being misquoted, and accused of making remarks I did not make. Is this a deliberate strategy intended to derail discussion. This has effectively derailed discussion here and elsewhere; please do not do this again.
 * Born2Cycle is right insofar as he says that common names are important; this page is right that common names should come from reliable sources; having quoted "verifiability, not truth", it seemed to explain why, and still does. None of this was intended to rile Storm Rider, but to elucidate policy.
 * While it would be simple to retaliate on Storm Rider's history, those remarks are better addressed to a different audience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy counter-proposal
I have come to the view that "accuracy" is only needed when there is a gap between the name expected by readers on searching for the article, and the name expected after having read the article, and thus informed themselves on the topic.
 * Readers will search for "Oxford University", and may be surprised to find themselves whisked off to University of Oxford, but they only have to read the first sentence before the penny drops and they say "Yes, I see now. The title is right after all."
 * Readers will search for "The Black Album"; but in reading the article they will learn that "The Black Album" is an nickname for what is in fact a self-titled album. Having informed themselves, the majority of people will expect the article to be at "Metallica" (modulo disambiguation).
 * Same deal for plants that have a long history under a name that has had to be changed. Publish a new name for an old plant, and, though you may have the unanimous support of everyone whose opinion counts, still it takes twenty years for the name to creep into the vocabulary of the average weekend bush-walker. For at least the next decade, people are going to be arriving at Banksia sessilis through a search for Dryandra sessilis. The title is going to surprise people. But once they've read the article they will understand why we chose the title we did, and, mostly, agree.
 * Same deal for Xandar's "Canadian Navy" example. People might search for this term initially, but after having read the article will they will see "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" as the most appropriate title.

The problem, then is the wording of our "easy to find" principle: "Good article titles use the term by which readers are most likely to search for the article". This puts way too much emphasis on the initial search terms. If applied in the above cases, we would have to move "University of Oxford" to "Oxford University"; "Metallica (album)" to "The Black Album"; "Banksia sessilis" to "Dryandra sessilis"; and "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" to "Canadian Navy". Such moves would eliminate the initial moment of surprise, when the reader discovers that the title is not what they had expected. But there will be a later moment of surprise, when the now-informed reader learns that our title is not so good after all. Far better to be surprised before you knew anything about the topic, than to read up on the topic and then be surprised.

Therefore what we should be doing here is setting aside the undefinable concept of "accuracy", and instead revising our "easy to find" principle to take this into accoun.

The nice thing about this counter-proposal is that it cannot be deployed in situations where there is a genuine real-world naming dispute. The Macedonia naming disputers would be able to take up "accuracy" and use it as a weapon, by claiming that their preferred name is more "accurate" than the alternative(s). But so long as Wikipedia continues to cover the dispute in an accurate and even-handed manner, as it must, it is not possible to argue that informed readers will walk away from the article with a consistent view of what the title should be.

Hesperian 23:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this: The now-informed reader learns that our title is not so good after all. In each case, if the title is at the name most likely to be expected and searched for name by most, then the title is not only good, but ideal.  The very idea that there is some kind of objective criteria for determining the best or most accurate name, other than which is most commonly used, is fundamentally flawed.  Names are just that, names.  There is no right or wrong.  There is no name that is more or less "accurate".  The only criteria that should matter is which name is the name most commonly used to refer to the topic in question.  That, and only that, is reason to use it as the title.  What relevance is there when some probably obscure document or "reliable source" declares the "official" name to be this or that?  Names evolve, and Wikipedia should simply reflect the current most commonly used name for each topic covered.  Trying to be more sophisticated than that results in a guaranteed quagmire of contention and ambiguity. So, let us go with the most commonly used name, as best as we can, and be done with it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So which name would you go with in the following situation, assuming for the sake of the argument that my numbers are accurate? You are of course at liberty to deny the availability of such numbers, but I'd like to hear which name you would support in this hypothetical situation all the same.

Hesperian 00:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure readers have a problem finding articles; do we? The technology is just too good in directing readers to their articles today; if you can think of a name for it we can link to the right article.
 * As a reader of encyclopedias, I look for knowledge and/or to be informed about a topic. If, in my ignorance, I use slang or common language for something, I am gratified when I actually learn a more proper name for the topic. This gratification is not unique, but is the common experience of learning.
 * I don't think we are talking about typical situations, but in the event that there is confusion over which name to choose, it seems like we aid the community by directing a preference for accurate names. Again, I don't think this confusion or problem is common, but I do think it would assist directing when the occaision does arise. -- Storm  Rider  00:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes; I mostly agree. I just don't see "accuracy" as helpful here. The key to this is the fact that you only searched using the slang term because you didn't know better. Having informed yourself, having learned "a more proper name for the topic", in future you would search for information on the topic under that other name. What I'm saying is that the name you prefer after you have fully informed yourself on the topic, is a better choice than the name you preferred in ignorance beforehand. We don't need to introduce the concept of "accuracy" to capture this. Hesperian 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting to talk about a "counter-proposal" when there was no initial proposal, just a question. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * SR, article naming has little if anything to do with helping users find articles for the reasons you cited. H, I love the way you presented this problem. Until the article has had enough influence in the public at large to change the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of the article, the title should continue to reflect the name currently used most commonly.  So, in your example, at least for now, I'd go with the The Black Album. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And you acknowledge that this means readers will disapprove of the name on the way out rather than on the way in? Hesperian 01:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. And what really matters is the whether the name readers use after reading the article is affected by reading the article.  That is, do they start talking and writing about the album Metallica, rather than the Black Album, when they refer to the album, after they read the article?  And, even then, until the numbers of readers who read and whose own usage is changed by that article is sufficient to cause an overall change in usage in the population at large, it doesn't matter.  Besides, there is no way to know the article is even having that effect to any significant degree until overall actual usage in that manner changes.   --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle, it sounds like you want to propose moving Feces to a new title -- one that is substantially more frequently heard. Under your system, Sexual intercourse and Anus would also have to be moved to more, ah, common (by which I mean "vulgar") terms.  Schizophrenia will have to move to "schizo", and we'd re-title the specific concept of Mental retardation with the vaguer but au courant politically correct choice of "intellectual disability".  We'll need a team to do frequent checks on the current status of pages like African-American, because names for disadvantaged minority groups occasionally change rapidly.
 * The list goes on, but I hope that you see the difficulty with ignoring every consideration except how many page hits a term gets.
 * Oh, and I can think of several names that are wrong, in the sense that they impart entirely inaccurate information. The original name for one rare hematological disease, for example, names the wrong cell as the cause of the disease.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that you say original name - I take it that another name is now in use? If so, we should use the new name, since it has succeeded in displacing the old; if it has not, we should indulge the common error for the sake of communicating. Several well-established names imply historical error, but we use them anyway, because the sources do; consider Pellian equation, which is so called because Euler made a mistake, two centuries ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's another good example of why "accuracy" is problematic; yet I do not see it as problematic for my counter-proposal. Having read the article, the reader is not going to walk away with the sense that we chose the wrong name; they are going to walk away with the sense that we chose the right name—a name which just happens to be rooted in an error. Hesperian 03:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what your counter-proposal is, exactly. If you could formulate it, even roughly, it would help. I am also cautious about appealints from the arriving reader to the reader informed by the article; too many users want to improve and instruct the reader (by which they mean teaching him their point of view) as it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point; at this point I can see that it is broken, but haven't figured out how to fix it yet. Tell me, what would be your answer to the question that I framed in the table above? Hesperian 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Further from seeing what the "counter-proposal" is, I don't see what the original proposal was! I started the "accuracy" section with a question, and I think we've answered it. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. Further up you said 'The fact remains that people often make arguments in naming disputes that are based on perceived correctness. What to do about that is an interesting question'. The proposal/question/whatever about including accuracy as a principle was aimed at that. This is a different proposal that is also aimed at that. Hesperian 05:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, here I'm not asking anything, but commenting. I wondered aloud whether we should include "accuracy" as a criterion, the answer was determined to be "no" for good reasons, and here we are. Are you suggesting that any particular principle be added to the list, or that we've already got the principles we need, or is it something else you're proposing? Now I'm asking a question. Namely: What is your "counter-proposal", in a few words? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Darn clipped edit summary) - No, I think I found it. You're suggesting that the "ease of searching" criterion puts too much weight on first search terms. I agree. I think there's a little bit of astonishment in seeing a different title than what one searched for, but if it's clear that the title they find is better - in terms of being precise, supported by sources, etc. - then I think that's fine. The "ease of searching" criterion is, in a way, an artifact of Web 1.0, when we hadn't yet internalized the whole "redirect" thing. People now are very accustomed to typing "kayaniskatsi" or something similar and having Google say, "Did you mean, koyaanisqatsi?" -GTBacchus(talk) 06:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm ready now. I didn't realise it when I started this section, but my proposal, in a few words, is restore the guidance that we follow usage in reliable sources.

The "easy to find" principle tells us to use the name that readers will use to search for the article. This puts way too much emphasis on the names used by people in ignorance of the relevant facts. I'm much more interested in the name that readers will prefer after they have read the article and become well-informed. People will search for "The Black Album", but they'll hopefully learn something from reading our article, namely the fact that the album is self-titled, and they'll then expect the article title to be "Metallica (album)". People will search for "Oxford University", but by the time they have read the first six words they will fully support the title "University of Oxford". This is what people mean when they say a name is "correct" or "accurate": they mean that the name is preferred by people who are in possession of the relevant facts.

It would be great to say "Use the name preferred by people who know what they are talking about", but, in accordance with "verifiability not truth", I think this would have to be rephrased as "Use the name preferred in reliable sources". On comprehending this, I was about to withdraw my counter-proposal and bow out gracefully, when I discovered that the "follow usage in reliable sources" guidance has been removed. This is not acceptable. I know from personal experience that this is a basic principle of naming in many parts of Wikipedia. Hesperian 06:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - What he said. Well put, Hesperian. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support with comments. The sources should be good proxies for "people who know what they're talking about"; sources that don't know what they're talking about aren't reliable.
 * There may be special cases in which the sources are not representative of knowledgable English usage. For one example, histories of Fooland may tend to be more pedantic in representing Foolandic names than the average person who knows Foolandish history; all of the historians read Foolandic, and read more of it than other people. But this is IAR, and a reason to avoid unqualified commands.
 * As a fine point, some authors probably use Metallica themselves, but call it Black Album in print, either to communicate with readers, or not to seem to show off. We are in much the same situation, and should probably give their usage equal weight, especially since (without a comment in the preface) it's hard to tell who they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - You have exactly summarized my thoughts about accuracy! Thank you.-- Storm  Rider  16:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Usage in reliable sources simply does not reflect how the majority, if not the vast majority, of Wikipedia articles are named. Actual common usage, which is often in conflict with "usage in reliable sources" (especially if those reliable sources are obscure reference books and manuals).  Of course, in many cases the usage in reliable sources and in common usage is the same, so the distinction in all those cases is moot.  So this distinction is only relevant when there is a conflict between common usage and usage in reliable sources, and those are exactly the cases where Wikipedia has usually (unfortunately not consistently) given preference to the most common usage.   As to claims by  WhatamIdoing above that preferring common usage means:
 * Sexual intercourse and Anus would also have to be moved to more, ah, common (by which I mean "vulgar") terms. Schizophrenia will have to move to "schizo", and we'd re-title the specific concept of Mental retardation with the vaguer but au courant politically correct choice of "intellectual disability".  We'll need a team to do frequent checks on the current status of pages like African-American, because names for disadvantaged minority groups occasionally change rapidly. 
 * Uh, not exactly. First, while vulgar usage is common, I reject the notion that it is more common than words like Sexual intercourse and Anus.  We have to consider usage in schools, churches, books, magazines, newspapers etc. as well as usage in construction sites.  Common usage does not mean ignoring reliable sources; usage in reliable sources is a subset of common usage.
 * Your other examples actually support my argument. We would continue to use names like Mental retardation until and unless the more politically correct term actually achieved most common usage status, same with references to disadvantaged minority groups.
 * Names are names. Wikipedia article titles should reflect the name most commonly used to refer to the topic in question.  Simple.  Clear.  Very useful (for indicating what the most common name is).  Usage exclusive to "reliable sources" that conflicts with common usage should rarely if ever be given preference.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose-ish Still reeling after the Ireland-name-vote. One point raised during that debate was that articles on states are seldom located at their "correct" names e.g. France not French Republic, Australia not Commonwealth of Australia, Lybia not Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and so on. Common usage in reliable sources for many topics often don't use the "correct" name. Keeping an encyclopediac tone will easily rule out vulgarities. We also should keep in mind that our purpose here is to inform, not to be know-alls. A person reading an article at the "wrong title" should be informed of the correct name for the subject - but that is the purpose of the body of the article, not the title. The purpose of the title is so that they may find the article (maybe before they know what the "correct" title is) and so that it can be easily linked to from other articles (where the common name for the topic may be the preferred phraseology over the "correct" name). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "A person reading an article at the "wrong title" should be informed of the correct name for the subject - but that is the purpose of the body of the article, not the title.".  Exactly! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not an issue of finding an article and never has been. Wikipedia technolgoy is very good and you type in anything close and editors have made it so that you will arrive at the proper article...and learn the proper title in the process. The body may include alternative names and explain the proper name. -- Storm  Rider  07:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia UI is only one of many ways that people access Wikipedia content. Wikipedia has also been officially published (i.e. by the Wikimedia Foundation) on CD-ROM and as a book. Third party publishers/redistributors of Wikipedia content (of which there are a great many, both commercial and non-commerical) will likely not use a UI that we are used to - whether they publish on a website, another digital form, in print or through another media.
 * When we write an article, we need to write it from a technologically neutral perspective because we do not know how a reader will access it. The vast majority of readers access it through the Wikimedia UI. Children in an African village working of print-out sheets organised in binders, do not. These are the extemes of access that we have to bear in mind. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah, some titles are descriptive, not names
PMAnderson pointed out in a summary comment that some titles are descriptive, not names. Well, yeah, like. But I think it's reasonably accurate to say that that is only when there is no name for the article topic. That is, with the conditional "Whenever possible, ...", it's true that titles should reflect the name of the topic. If the topic has no name, then, obviously, the title should be something that reasonably describes the topic. But, that should only be true (with perhaps a per article exception here or there) for topics that have no names. And I noted that all this begs the question of WHAT name the title should indicate. Here the leading candidates seem to be:


 * 1) The name most commonly used exclusively in reliable sources.
 * 2) The names most commonly used by the population at large, including in reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, books, etc.), but not ignoring popular usage in so-called unreliable sources such as conversations, blogs, letters to the editor, etc., sources that reflect actual usage by people likely to use the encyclopedia.

As I said above, the distinction is moot in many if not most cases, for the criteria often produce the same result. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the time, as with London or Kiev, these are the same name. When they differ, there are three reasons why we should choose reliable sources:
 * We can provide evidence on what reliable sources do; we can quote them. If we pursue "actual" usage, we are likely to be conducting original research.
 * It is what our readers will expect of an encyclopedia (consider Feces, again; likewise, referring to reliable sources is an easy answer to the troll who argues that Group X should be called by [ethnic slur], which is so common on the Internet - I hope our readers will be pleased).
 * It avoids the (hypothetical) Metallica case above: suppose those who know something about a subject use a different name than those who don't.
 * We may well differ on the weight and validity of these; but there are three of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(@B2c) With respect to your first point, we all seem to agree that we use a name if one exists. The issue PMA raises above is whether that guidance needs to be in the lead. Personally I think it does, though not necessarily in the very first sentence.

With respect to your second point, it is indeed begging the question of what name the title should indicate. The whole point of much of this rewrite is to beg that question, because observation of naming decisions across Wikipedia and over several years leads inevitably to the conclusion that there is no single answer to that question. There are multiple principles at work here, and where different principles suggest different names, that is resolved by consensus.

Hesperian 01:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with PMAnderson about the need to follow reliable sources, rather than "actual usage". Must...fight...desire to be pedantic about use of the phrase "begging the question..." john k (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops :-) Hesperian 01:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(more @ B2c) I was wandering through Perennial proposals a little while ago, and I noticed an entry entitled Define reliable sources. The reason given for the rejection of this proposal is "Assessing the reliability of sources requires sound editorial judgment, not strict adherence to a list of rules." This captures well my view on article titles. Choosing the best article title requires sound editorial judgment, not strict adherence to a list of rules. Hesperian 03:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems right. On the other hand, and to play the devil's advocate a bit, to what extent can we rely on sound editorial judgment on Wikipedia?  Is it realistic to expect that we can accomplish things that way? john k (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is realistic, but I do know that it is policy; this is the very essence of Ignore all rules. There is a beautiful quote on What "Ignore all rules" means:
 * "Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery."
 * Hesperian 06:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hesperian editorial judgement reminded me of a song "I say tomato you say Solanum lycopersicum, syn. Lycopersicon lycopersicum & Lycopersicon esculentum you say Aesculus hippocastanum I sayhorse chestnut, lets call the whole thing off". -- PBS (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. So let's. Hesperian

Boiling it down
After much reflection, I think the foundation of this policy is one constraint and two goals.

Constraint: Each article must have a unique name.

Goal: Choose a title that conveys the topic to the reader.
 * Familiarity/recognizability emerges from this. So does precision.

Goal: Choose a title that conveys that the article content can be trusted.
 * We want to look like we are well organised and know what we are doing. The use of a formal register emerges from this ("feces" not "shit"). So does the desire to apply consistent names across groups of articles. So does the push for concise names rather than long-winded descriptions. So does the (much-maligned and often in conflict with the other goal, but nonetheless present) desire to designate things by their technically correct / official / canonical / standardised names ("Metallica (album)" not "The Black Album").

And that's it. The other two things we've been throwing around are red herrings:

Red herring: use the most common name according to usage in reliable sources.
 * This is a method that usually leads to us achieving the goals listed above. In PMA's words, it is a means not an end.

Red herring: Follow the principle of least surprise.
 * This gives us a rough measure of our success. It too is a means not an end.

Hesperian 00:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consistency has other benefits, like predictability (I can tell where the monarchs of England and France are), and I'm not really convinced by the goal of appearance. We're not a reliable source, and looking like one could be characterized as misrepresentation.


 * But if this is not entirely right, it is in the right direction. Utility might be better for the second goal: We want to be well-organized, not just appear to be; we want to have the article title be feces, because readers will expect it to be there - and can cite it without complaints from their editing systems; we want to be concise, because concise titles save everybody work; and so on. Let me go away and think about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say accuracy was a key goal.  Xan  dar   01:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Accuracy is a largely meaningless goal. What is the "accurate" name of Kiev? But we can say which name tells the reader which city we are talking about; the one she has heard before and will recognize. See accuracy and precision for the difference between this and Precision: the distinction between Kiev and Kiev Oblast is Precision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Accuracy is only key to the extent that it is expected from our readers. Most of our readers would mock us if we moved momentum to impetus, because this is an inaccuracy they do not expect and will not accept. Yet the same readers are perfectly happy that Gulliver's Travels is not located at its actual title, Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of several Ships, because this inaccuracy is expected and acceptable. Why? Because everyone does it. Thus accuracy is merely a poor surrogate for usage. Hesperian 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is better and more accurate to say Inuit rather than Eskimo, or Dalit rather than untouchable. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is better and more accurate than "Mormon Church", and Canadian Forces Maritime Command is more accurate than the more popular Canadian Navy.  Xan  dar   02:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Inuit" is more precise than "Eskimo". "CoJCoLDS" is more precise than "Mormon Church". Your last example comes under what I called the "desire to designate things by their technically correct / official / canonical / standardised names". You may refer to as accuracy if you wish, though I think doing so caused more problems than it solves. Hesperian 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, depending on where you are, "Inuit" is more restrictive than "Eskimo." Most Yup'ik in Alaska consider themselves to be "Eskimo" but not "Inuit".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Choose a title that conveys the topic to the reader." is not a goal because I can choose a title in French (or Latin) which conveys the topic to the reader, but that is not a "goal". What is a goal is to "choose the most meaningful title that conveys a the topic to the reader". how do choose such a name? why by looking to see what reliable sources in English use. -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We presume (should we state explicitly?) that the reader speaks English; we do not assume that he speaks French or Latin, so the French or Latin title must fail to convey the topic to him, unless it is one of those cases (chauffeur, De rerum natura) in which a foreign phrase has been adopted into English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The mind likes seeing patterns even when they are not there (eg the canals on Mars). It is not a good idea to promote consistency along side common name and precision on this policy page, as it can be used to undermine both. I have used "Nazi Germany occupation of ..." as an example before because consistency would encourage its use, even when "German occupation of ..." or "Occupation of ..." would be sufficient (depending on the country different precision is need if the name is to be unambiguous). The article name should be precise but unambiguous. -- PBS (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Has no one anything to say on my last comment in this section? -- PBS (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not so much "promoting" it as telling people that it plays a big part. You and I might not like it, but in practice names like "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" get adopted, not because they're common or precise, but simply because people like to see certain patterns. Until we can persuade the community to change that way of thinking, this page has to reflect it.--Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be advised in a guideline, but having it in policy alongside the other statements will cause no end of problems with article names being common or precise, because some think that names like "Nazi Germany occupation of ..." makes a set. -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then, we should say they don't. Suggestions on wording are in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: In WP:Naming Conventions, should the specific exceptions to "Use Common Name" be removed?
On WP:Naming conventions the text in the section of policy now headed Use Common name has been significantly changed. All reference to exceptions to the use of the most Common names, as set out in the various individual naming conventions, has been removed. The policy originally read:


 * Convention: 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.) Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

It has been amended by a number of editors to read:


 * 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. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Does the removal of exceptions to "Use Common name" from the policy page have agreement?  Xan  dar  21:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The removal of the term exceptions from the article seems to have consensus, although I don't agree with it. However, above, it should still be noted before the individual principles that that subarticles can arbitrate conflicts between the principles, so that no specific exceptions to individual principles is required.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose this proposed change of policy on the grounds that the specific Wikipedia Naming Convention pages have been built up over many years. They successfully deal with individual article naming situations in different contexts, often by means of specific exceptions to "use common name". The exceptions passage needs to remain to endorse this and make it clear. I don't believe ANY community consensus exists for its removal so far. The original passage documents what Wikipedia editors actually DO. This is what Wikipedia policy pages should be doing. The newly introduced passage does not document what Wikipedia and its editors actually do, but instead substitutes a doctrinaire insistence on "one-size-fits-all" naming. In other words it would be an attempt to centrally dictate policy from above, while ignoring the needs of specific groups within Wikipedia.   Xan  dar   22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This page contains several other principles than "use common name", and these other principle aren't "exceptions" - they are other objectives we try and attain simultaneously. Out of the names which satisfy all the objective, we should pick the most common one - but this has to be a name which is unambiguous, in verifiable use in reliable sources, etc.  It's a final post-selection, not the only principle. Knepflerle (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And there are other principles for other circumstances set out in the individual naming guidelines, which the removal of the exceptions clause would threaten. That is why the naming guidelines exist. If every possibility were covered in this policy, the other conventions would not need to exist.  Xan  dar  11:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No - the guidelines are explicit clear examples of the application of the set of principles here. This is useful to avoid rehashing discussions on how to apply the principles. Knepflerle (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Xandar's post is inaccurate as a summary of Wikipedia history and of the present dispute; he - and he only - has attempted to add new and general language providing not only exceptions to specific principles (as the old language here permitted exceptions to Common Names), but permitting guidelines to alter policy. This is unacceptable; we distinguish between policy and guidelines precisely to avoid this.
 * His interpretation of the old language conflicts with Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence; and with the experience of those of us who used and discussed this page.
 * The intent of the old text here was to provide for the situation when Common Name conflicts with some other good, such as Consistency in a class of articles, or Uniqueness. This is implicit in the actual guidelines, which do in fact discuss such problems. The phrasing recognizing them as separate principles did not yet exist; but the concept that naming discussions are often a conflict of goods is very old, and the old wording was a way of dealing with this. Arthur Rubin is correct that we should note explicitly that different principles, since they are different, can conflict. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the whole point. Some people are wanting to create conflicts where none exist. Remove the exceptions phrase, and people will be able to say "Guideline X" conflicts with "use common name", therefore guideline X should be derogated. The current situation is that guidelines provide specific exceptions to "use most common name", where they are needed, and this should continue.  Xan  dar   23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RM exists because the desirable qualities of names conflict; and this page has been being refined long before Xandar began his crusade at a specific guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose the change. Specific naming conventions have been created by editors with expertise in specific areas. It is entirely appropriate to debate what these specific naming conventions should be, but it is ridiculous to throw them out entirely.- gadfium 22:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody proposes to throw them out entirely; I've put in too much work on them to do so. This RfC is an objection to what they actually do: Apply this policy to specific fields, rather than ignoring it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this is the danger. The change of wording will support the argument that the guidelines, in providing specific options "ignore" or contradict this policy, while the longstanding wording clearly shows that they are complementing the policy page.  Xan  dar   11:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. This page documents the principles, and the conventions detail their application to certain contexts, and some wording should be developed to make this clear. Calling these applications "exceptions" does not make this clear. Knepflerle (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is fantastic! The old version of this page established binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. Those of you who, like me, support the self-determination of specific naming guidelines, should be delighted. Unfortunately Xandar appears to be inducing a moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a discussion unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 23:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly - this document should contain all the required consensus principles which are in practise. Knepflerle (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That could well be the defining answer. I think that consensus was to reflect basic principals and favor the general reader over the expert reader.  As long as the changes recognize those points they are an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the new wording can or could change the status of Wikipedia policy, as Hesperian now claims, while he tries to personalise the issue. As can be seen from the discussions before the RfC, some of the proposed policy's promoters clearly DO see the new wording as an opening to challenge the individual naming-conventions and make them conform to "always use the most common name." Don't be misled. The new wording actually denies the self-determination of individual guidelines. The old version didn't mention "rules" either, so that argument is a red herring. The question to ask is why there is such insistence on removing the specific wording on exceptions if it is so unimportant?  Xan  dar   11:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you summarise this page's contents as "always use the most common name", when this is not true. And has never been true.  And which there is no movement to make true.   Over-simplifying the guidance here by taking one principle of several in complete isolation is the key error in this argument. Knepflerle (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - please focus on the context of the proposal rather than a single editor. This little bit of ganging up on an individual only serves to undermine your position and is not in character with Wikipedia policies. -- Storm  Rider  03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The complaint here is spurious; it is based, at best, on a misunderstanding of what this page has said, and what Wikipedia's naming practices (which this page should document) actually are. In the past, this page mentioned exceptions to one principle, to Common Name, when we meant to acknowledge that it conflicted with other principles, as it still does. That clarification constitutes no change of policy; it consistutes a clarification of policy.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I absolutely agree that this RFC is about the policy page, and not about any particular editor. Any comment about particular editors are out-of-place here. So, on topic, I agree that this page is for articulating principles, and that we need to make sure it doesn't look like law that lawyers think they can quote. Wikipedia's best practices are determined by consensus in specific cases, and then abstracted to policies. "Exceptions" (bad term to use) are examples of places where there is a consensus to do something differently in one area than elsewhere. This sort of agreement can be perfectly valid, so long as it incorporates community input, so it is not a local consensus of a few editors. I'm not a fan of any sentence that uses the language of "exceptions" and "precedence" or "trumping". I don't think we should be promoting the legalistic notion of "policy > guideline". Taking the legalistic language out of the policy is by no means a negation of the non-legalistic underlying idea. If someone tries to enforce what's written on this page as law — in either direction: saying that specific agreements can trump COMMONNAME or that COMMONNAME can trump specific agreements — then we need to patiently explain to them the principles set out at WP:WIARM. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Knepflerle

 * I second the inaccuracy of Xandar's statement and talk-page notices. The conventions here have never said just "use the most common name", and no-one is proposing they should.  They instead call for the use of the most common, recognizable name (if possible consistent with related articles) which is unambiguous and used in reliable English-language sources.  This is not the same - the further principles are important, and exist for good reason.


 * Generally, other naming conventions are not exceptions to this above rule - they are merely explicit applications of these principles to particular subject areas - eg the flora guidelines, where it was decided that scientific nomenclature was the only way to provide consistency and unambiguity simultaneously. Furthermore, articles that are not at the "most common name" are there because the most common name fails one of the other conditions listed - most often it is because this name is ambiguous, but it may also be rarely used in reliable sources, or confusingly inconsistent with other articles.
 * Flora needs changing, it is clearly in breach of this policy. AFAICT it is the only guideline which does not start with the assumption of use Common names, National varieties of English, etc (the general principles), and then develop specific guidance from there. One reason for this is because many of the editors who supported the current guideline, do not seem to understand what "common name" means in the naming conventions. However in practice it only affects the name of a few articles, as many would be under their scientific name even if that specific guideline did not exist. --PBS (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I say above, I don't see a "breach" or inconsistency when the principles are taken as a whole set - taking the most common names can lead to ambiguity and (less importantly in my view) consistency, so we look through consistent schemes which provide unambiguous naming and pick the most common out of those - and this resulted in the current guidance. Knepflerle (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As we see, the language being used here is of certain convention guidelines "breaching" this policy. That is the way this is going. That's why the long-standing wording is needed to make clear that such conventions document exceptions not breaches. My analysis is correct. And everyone can see from the wording changes above, exactly what has been proposed.  Xan  dar   11:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PBS has been claiming for years that WP:NC (flora) and various other guidelines are in breach, as testified by the whole of Archive 2, and most of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora), and most of WT:UCN, and numerous other talk pages. If you think PBS's employment of words like "breach" is anything new, then that just goes to show how utterly devoid of context you are. I've fought a long and bitter fight against the likes of PBS, for recognition of the rights of specific naming guidelines to whatever is the sensible thing in their particular field, without having to worry about being in "breach" of a general convention full of rules. Finally, we make some progress, and full credit to PBS for unbending enough to allow this to happen. And now you want to overturn it because it doesn't go far enough? Because it doesn't give you a cast-iron guarantee that your pet article will have the title you want it to? Because it hasn't stopped PBS from talking about "breaches" overnight? That's bullshit. Consensus decides what your pet article is named, and the wording of policy cannot change that. We've made massive progress here, and if you could see past your pet article, you might notice. Hesperian 11:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * However, one paragraph does not follow from these principles, and proposes something quite different: recent debate and editing have stemmed from attempts to clarify wording at WP:NCON, which is being read by some editors as promoting the use of self-identifying names wherever possible. It is not clear that the wording actually refers to titles (as opposed to the text); it is not clear whether this is supported by consensus (being introduced there practically undiscussed three years ago, and now challenged by far more editors than ever supported it); it is not clear that this has been supported by actual practice on articles (the paragraph has been quoted in less than five discussions, and rejected notably at Kiev, for example); it is not clear that there is a need for any alternative to the current, well-known, well-scrutinised, well-applied and well-established advice on this page.


 * Overall, we need to decide if there are any true exceptions to the advice given here (as opposed to clarifications, amplfications or applications), and indicate here accordingly. If there are true exceptions, and these are exceptions supported by consensus, actual practice and need, then these should not be "exceptions" at all - as a useful consensus practice they should be brought into this document here - for listing such practices is this document's raison d'être.  Knepflerle (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. If there are exceptions to something said here, they should be stated here. If they can't be, the statement to which they are exceptions is itself too vague, too disputed, or insufficiently thought through to be policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words the contention is that any exceptions not laid down in this page will be declared to be wrong and a contradiction. That is a huge reversal of current practice and directly contradicts Hesperian's claims above.  Xan  dar   11:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that is an incorrect summary. Principles we use are on this page.  Examples of using this principles are in the conventions.  Any new principles which warrant inclusion due to need, existing use and consensus will be included too. Knepflerle (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (reply to Xandar's post above Knepflerle's) Anyone who "declares exceptions to be wrong and a contradiction" needs to be trout-slapped and pointed to IAR. Policy is not statutory law, too many people think it is, and we need to be opposing such a view, not capitulating to it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that Xandar's question can really be "inaccurate": The original version is quoted verbatim, and so is the new version.  The question is "Does this change have consensus?"  Without reading anything into Xandar's motives (something several editors seem to be doing), I find no possibility for listing X and Y and inquiring about the level of support to be appropriately described as "inaccurate".  "Does this change, which I believe will be (mis)interpreted as... have consensus?" or "Does this change, which means significantly more than what it says, have consensus?" could be misleading, but Xandar isn't doing this.  Anybody can see from the diffs that these changes have been made; we need to know whether they reflect consensus.
 * If "common name" is meant to be essentially co-equal with each of the other conventions, then this page really must say that. Editors that are trying to implement the advice here should not have to read 100KB of backstory to figure out whether a page title should be "the most recognizable to general readers, even if it's seriously imprecise" or "the most precise, even if it's not recognizable".  Editors should not have to guess whether the two-sentence WP:COMMONNAME is elevating the common names guideline above subject-matter guidelines.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is inaccurate because it ignores the profound contextual changes to the sentence being quoted. Hesperian 00:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An "incomplete" description is not necessarily an "inaccurate" description. Otherwise, every single stub on Wikipedia would be violating WP:V, as they are "incomplete".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Xandar describes our conventions as listing exceptions to "use common name". They don't, and therein lies the inaccuracy.  This page has always included other considerations than commonality, and the conventions describe how the principles as a complete set have been applied.  They do not list "exceptions" to just one principle taken in isolation. Knepflerle (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Again, following up on WhatamIdoing comments; FOCUS ON THE PROPOSAL. Xandar is not the proposal and never has been. He has quoted the language accurately. If you disagree and that you are proposing something different, bring to the body. You three seem to be the knuckle draggers in this little escapde, do you have anyone that is willing to focus on the proposal?-- Storm  Rider  03:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's pure gold! "Focus on the proposal not the person... you knuckle-draggers." Hesperian 03:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments are about the proposal and how Xandar summarised the current position - not about Xandar himself. However, your "knuckle-dragger" jibe has nothing to do with the proposal, and everything to do with personal insult.  Anyone who has read my statement will easily see through such hypocritical and baseless slur. Knepflerle (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot of discussion of me, so far, and allegations that I am misrepresenting what the convention has always said. I think the correctness of my position is clear enough from the alternative wordings above. When analysed in common English, the meaning is quite clear. One policy endorses the varied exceptions to "use most common name" that appear in the community-based naming conventions. The other lays down a strict centralised rule.  Xan  dar   11:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It articulates a principle: one of several. This is made clear in the context, which you are scrupulously avoiding. Hesperian 11:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE - It is beyond question that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to enlighten, provide knowledge, and inform its readers. As such, it must first and foremost provide facts as reported by reliable sources. It is NOT a list of the mundane or a repetition of the ignorant or the common. It is simply too easy to provide article names that are accurate. More importantly, there is no clear manner in which to identify the name most commonly used in English. Searches on google and other search engines can be done, but they are hardly accurate or considered reliable sources. Self-identified or preferred names should be a criterion when evaluating a title. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the preferred title of the LDS Church, but the common or slang title is Mormon church. Should the common name prevail? Of course not. Myanmar is the preferred name of the country and has been for well over 20 years. It is the most common name as identified by a google search. It is the name of country as identified by the United Nations. Yet, the title is Burma on Wikipedia. This is achieved by common consent of Wikipedia in conflict with every naming convention...unless we want to count an gross misunderstanding of NPOV. We deal in facts and facts only. We should demand strict neutrality without any interest in the emotions or opinions of peoples; that is excellent article content only. We do not have a guideline where exceptions do not exist. Exceptions are a sign of flexibility and an understanding that Wikipedia is not run as a police state yet. -- Storm  Rider  03:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Burma is the common name, but your argument that it is not and that Myanmar is shows that you accept that principle of common name.--PBS (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Burma is not the common name and has not been for quite some time. The name that is used in national diplomacy, historical records, and by the people of Myanmar and the rest of the world most often is Myanmar. That is just the facts. Sorry, but your position is not correct. -- Storm  Rider  01:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This misunderstanding again springs largely from taking commonality in isolation from the other principles: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is the most common unambiguous name for the church - "Mormon Church" is not completely unambiguous; for that reason it is used here - just as it is commonly in other reliable sources of similar ilk. Our current policy supports this title, and it needs no exception to do so. Knepflerle (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you point to the UN list as indicative of a country's self-identification, when a little lower down the list (under "T"!) lies "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - which is not how the country self-identifies. This compromise position under T is a consequence of the Greece's objection to their self-identification.  Self-identification does not always lead automatically to neutral point-of-view identification, hence Matthew Nimetz' fifteen-year negotiations.  However, whether we introduce self-identification on this page as a principle is a separate discussion; if we are going to use it, it shouldn't be hidden away as an "exception" on a separate page. Knepflerle (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And you miss the rest of the reasoning. When making decisions it is best to take nothing in isolation. In reviewing all of the facts it is undeniable that the name of the nation-state is Myanmar and the vast majority of the world recognizes that except for the current Wikipedia article. -- Storm  Rider  01:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The British Government and the US Government use Burma, and in the UK nearly all the news media use Burma. This is not the place to debate the name of Burma. This is something that was debated throughly when the page was moved from Myanmar to Burma and the consesnsus was that Burma was the common name. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This page is a policy, there should be no weasel words that delegate policy to guidelines. The wording before said exactly the same thing "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication," the exceptions were to the content of the naming conventions (page) not the guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In particular, this page is a Wikipedia policy, and is therefore not written for the benefit of rule-cavilers and pettifoggers who would base all decisions on whether a certain "rule" is a "policy" or a "guideline". Wikipedia policies are reflections of previously established consensus, which can always change. We take numerous principles into consideration, not any one in a vacuum. A policy page that pretends there is a clear system of trumps is simply inaccurate. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Leave out the disputed sentence. As pointed out, the new structure of the page means it is no longer needed, since it is now perfectly clear that the common name principle is one of several. There is no more need for an "except where..." clause in that place than there is in any other section of this page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that only a limited number of alternatives to "use common name are set out". These do not match those documented in the guidelines, so the new wording would mean that all those guidelines suddenly conflict with policy. That is a huge centralised and centralising policy change, which could cause immense disruption across Wikipedia. It would take policy further from reality and actual practice by Wikipedians. PBS allegation that the wording only applied to certain of the naming conventions is a personal theory which does not have any basis in fact.   Xan  dar   11:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is precisely the opposite. We had an overbearing, centralised policy, and you didn't even notice. It said "Thou shalt obey these rules, unless an explicit exception is made." It has now been changed to "These are the principles of article naming. Find your own consensus on how to apply them." And you're complaining that the "unless an explicit exception is made" clause is gone. Beggars belief. Hesperian 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Herperian, can you provide me with a direct quotation from this page that says this oft-asserted claim that editors now get to pick and choose with principles they implement (and that they didn't before)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see important differences between what Hesperian said, and "pick and choose which principles they implement". If you actually do some work in requested moves - like, go close a couple hundred move requests, and deal with the resulting criticisms - you'll find that most of our article titling is based on Wikipedians forming consensus on how to apply various principles in context. Policy pages reflecting such reality is not a bad thing. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't like the current version at all. We seem to have changed "General conventions" to "General principles" and more recently to "General conventions and guidelines". This section occupies the majority of this policy page, the rest being largely a contents list of specific conventions. Make up your minds guys. If this is a policy page, don't label half of it a "guideline" or expect anyone to take notice of the subtleties in the heading "principles"? I don't buy Hesperian's "these are only principles" argument. They aren't principles anyway: "Use common names" is a demand, not a principle. The closest we have to "principles" is the overview section. And get rid if this "greatest number of English speakers" nonsense. That's never been policy. Do you really want paracetamol to be branded "Tylenol"? Or US spelling to win 100% of the time? And how could anyone hope to establish what is "the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English"? And what's a "verifiable reliable source" anyway -- is it one where I cite a reliable source that says I'm using a reliable source? And WTF does "optimized for readers over editors" mean? We can, and should, do better than this nonsense. It needs to be made much clearer that "choose the common name" is a generally useful rule but that there are exceptions. Colin°Talk 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The "overview" section - now the lead it seems - certainly does articulate principles, not demands, and that seems to me to be the right approach. As for the "greatest number of English speakers nonsense," have you actually participated in many titling disputes? After years of completing thousands of requested moves, I can testify that the idea behind COMMONNAME is the most often cited principle in those arguments; the one that carries the day most frequently. The Paracetamol/Tylenol example that you mention falls under the long-standing, broadly-supported "don't muck around with national varieties"-ceasefire. You're right that "verifiable reliable source" is a crime against the English language. I thought we killed that last week sometime, but it seems to have reappeared. That's something that's actually easier to fix than to complain about; I can only assume you've done so. As for "optimized for readers over editors", that's an even older principle that I remember reading in our policies back in '03. It means titling articles so that readers can find what they want, and aren't confused when they get there. Optimizing for editors would mean giving articles whatever title we're most likely to put double square brackets around. That whole concept is a bit moot however, because of redirects, as has been remarked recently on this talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made what I think are mostly minor edits in response to the above comment by User:Colin. I hope I've addressed the - IMO valid - issues that he brought up. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have participated in some titling disputes, though clearly not as many as you. I agree that COMMONNAME is the most often cited but it had not (as far as I was aware) ever been written as the simple formula "in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". The fact that this formula is useless is made clear by the complete contradiction that has now been added "this is not understood as a simple "majority rules" principle". Previously, "it is the common name in my country / in the country of the article-subject / etc" could be argued but now they would be simply shot down by a Google search results page. The formula also contradicts the policy on national languge varieties, as you point out, but there is no need for it to do so. If a name is "common" then it meets this aspect of policy. Further refinement over which is the best name are probably not best solved by ranking to find the name with the most occurrences in reliable sources (why should its occurrence in unreliable sources such as novels or tabloids not be relevant to many subjects?) Policy should be tight but not too tight -- so just leave it as "common" and don't try to refine that into "greatest number of English speakers" or "most Google hits" or whatever.
 * The point of my compaint about "optimized for readers over editors" is that it doesn't explain what it means. This is a page that must be readable by newbies trying to work out how to name an article. They will, frankly, not have a clue. Secondly, it has no relevance to "common name" -- it is an independent naming principle. Colin°Talk 07:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "greatest number of English speakers" has been policy for many many years. I think the reasons for using reliable sources is explained in the section . -- PBS (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't. The "greatest number" or "majority of" wording was not previously part of WP:COMMONNAME and was phrased as "Generally, article naming should prefer..." In other words, it was a reasonable starting point, not a formula for settling disputes. It is currently part of the most-cited section in this policy and written as an absolute requirement "Name articles in accordance with ..." This is a significant change in policy that intoduces unnecessary contraditions with other rules on this page and with guidelines linked to from this page. There is no need for it. The only thing policy needs to say is that we have a strong preference for commonly-used names. Leave the detail of how to determine what is "common" to the guideline. Colin°Talk 10:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per one of the most fundamental and broadly supported principles embodied in IAR: it's okay if newbies don't have a clue. They're not required to. I don't think newbies should read policy pages; they cause cancer. We oldies are already jaded, and our leathery skins can take the harsh artificial lights here. As for "name articles in accordance with", I tried to reword most of those to "articles are generally named in accordance with". I strongly disagree with writing the policies prescriptively. People are already too inclined to take them that way, and IAR is very, very, very, very important. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS - I deny that there is consensus for wording COMMONNAME as a commandment. You've repeated a lot that "rules are rules" in various formulations, but IAR and WIARM are strongly supported by a consensus of many more editors than you. I'd like to see that others - a consensus of others - agree that prescriptive language is appropriate there. What I'm getting from this discussion, from this RFC, is that people want principles, not hard-and-fast regulations. Who else supports your pet version? -GTBacchus(talk) 11:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * see the section below. --PBS (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Headed there now... -GTBacchus(talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * GT, I agree with you in that descriptive is more appropriate for Wikipedia. In practice, rules are flexible weather we want them that way or not. Articles are written by consensus first then policies and guidelines come second. I agree that policies usually have wide support of the community, but nothing that Wikipedia does is set in concrete and never has been. Its very nature is fluid. -- Storm  Rider  20:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Use the common name, like Burma and Joshua tree. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not at all clear to me that "Burma" is the common name for that nation. When I was in school, we learned it as Myanmar, and that's how I see it on maps. I think that most people older than I remember it as Burma, and most people younger than I either haven't heard of it, or know it as Myanmar. I'm 32. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the UK Burma is overwhelmingly the common name. See for example this article published only 5 days ago and this link "GCSE Geography B Teachers' Guide 7" (page 8) which indicates that Burma is used by school geography teachers preparing children for public exams. This is not the place to debate the name of a specific age. This was done at the time that Myanmar was moved to Burma. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Burma is not the common name and has not been quite some time. The common name is Myanmar. Most on-line dictionaries title their article "Myanmar", then begin by stating Myanmar, or Burma, or officially... Some just use Myanmar. There is an obvious POV that because the government was obtained by military coup that it is somehow unfit to be recognized. The name Burma for the article has been maintained by consensus, though it is hardly the proper title; it is one of those exceptions to policies and guidelines. Regardless, it is a poor example to use for common name. -- Storm  Rider  09:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh heck, I didn't mean to open that can. The only thing clear to me about that dispute is that it's not 100% clear and obvious which name is more common. I've seen quite good cases made for both sides, and that's why the dispute has ranged so long and so bitterly. The biggest impediment to productive dialogue is denying that there are good points to be made on the other side, or to claim that it's somehow clear or obvious. To generalize back to what this page is about, Burma/Myanmar is an excellent example of a disputed title that lies in a gray area and where we have to take all of our naming principles into consideration and let consensus work itself out. In this particular case, I don't see that happening anytime soon, so the name will remain in dispute. Fact of life. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Diff
There seems to be a lot of misinformation being pushed here. Let's get this straightened out. Here is the diff. My take on this is that the overriding principle "use the most common name" has been joined by four other principles of equal (or rather, unspecified) standing. With respect to the wording of the common names section, it has been changed from ""Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, articles should be named in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name primarily by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."" to ""A good title will name the article with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize – usually the most commonly used name verifiably used in reliable sources in English. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."" This is a general softening of the language, reflecting the fact that this is one of several principles to be taken into consideration, not a rule to be wielded against non-compliant conventions. It is important to see the removal of the "exceptions" clause in this broader context. Specifically, it is important to understand that reinserting it will again appear to elevate "use the most common name" to the status of a "rule" that cannot be broken unless an explicit exception is made; this would mean less freedom for specific conventions, not more.

But don't take my word for it. And certainly don't take Xandar's word for it. Look at the diff for yourself. Here it is again: [.

Hesperian 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please pause before you make these sorts of hysteric claims, Hesperian. The RFC was posted on 13th September. On 15th September TWO DAYS after the RFC began, someone changed the wording of the affected section on the page. So don't go accusing ME of dishonesty. Check your facts first. And we're discussing the principle here of removing direct reference to the specific exceptions-derogations provided by the specific naming conventions.  Xan  dar   11:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in playing the dishonest game of discussing half a sentence excised entirely from its context. Hesperian 12:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar and Hesperian, hello! Nothing is gained by using inflammatory language such as "misinformation being pushed", "don't take Xandar's word for it", "hysteric claims" and "dishonest game". This does neither of you any credit, and makes you both come across as beneath the dignity of this project. Can it, both of you. Xandar is right that we're discussing naming principles, and not each other. Hesperian - pull your socks up. Leave all ad hominem remarks back at the schoolyard. (Xandar, you see? I'm an equal opportunity bastard when it comes to this stuff.) So, can you two stay in the lines, or not? We'd all rather get work done, so race each other to be the first to rise to the occasion. That means no more hitting back. Turn the other cheek, and talk like professionals who can stay on topic. Else, blocks will fly soon. Yes, this counts as a warning to you both. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (I don't know where to put my comment anymore, they are now in a number of different sections). Oppose, this rules out the possibility to standardize information, and will result in edit-warring throughout Wikipedia.  "Convention: A good title will name the article with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize – usually the most commonly used name verifiably used in reliable sources in English.   The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." is simply an invitation to start edit warring about every name with a ph/f, ou/o s/z or whatever difference ENGVAR difference (hey, that is what is happening now, where local guidelines do say why one has preference over the other, but at least now we can say 'this is the convention, and until you convince us that the name is the wrong one, we keep that one'); (by the way, make it 'readers of the English language Wikipedia', which is something different).  The problem is easy if it is a common word, as then probably the US English title will be used, but where there is some official choice of name, that line is blurring, as both will be used more equally.  Can someone show me a significant preference of 'color' over 'colour' (forget the Google test already for that).  Regarding varieties of English spelling: this is going to violate WP:RETAIN, what if the article is written in UK English, then we should retain the article text in UK English, but now use the commonname for the title.  Another point: there will be cases where there will be 20-30 different local names for certain brands of products, a lot of them used to a significant extend.  This wording would overrule now the use of the (sometimes generally unknown) name which has been assigned by a world leading organisation that is recognised as the standard for the naming of that type of products (I am thinking about e.g. the article names of the >4000 drugs we have here; based on the current wording, a COI editor could start an edit war about a drug where they want to have it assigned to their brand name, and if that name is used significantly, that type of advertising would stick).  Although this change is meant in a good way, I am sure it will result in a mayhem of edit/move wars,
 * However, an easy solution may be: add to the WP:COMMONNAME part that exceptions lined out in Naming conventions should be followed (a part that is now removed, and which is now invisible to the people). But that gets close to what the original text was, and what seems to be disputed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The old version said "use the most common name". That was the rule. The only rule. Which meant the convention also had to make exceptions, so that you could apply your eminently sensible naming convention to those >4000 drugs. This version demotes "use the most common name" to one of several principles, another of which is consistency, which states "Similar articles are generally given similar titles." This is the principle under which you guys have been using the standard names of those >4000 drugs, and here it is, articulated for the first time! Your drug articles are no longer an exception to the general rule. They are perfectly acceptable mainstream names now. It is beyond me how you can possibly see that as a negative. See also the section below,, which also bears on this. Hesperian 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Consistency" as it is currently word is a bad idea. "Usually common name" is the way forward or it make a mockery of "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking consistency out would make a mockery of the consensus on these drug articles, along with numerous other consensuses. Far better to make a mockery of nineteen words in a policy, than to make a mockery of community consensus. Hesperian 11:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is still a section called Use Common name," and it still sets out what most editors will see as a rule - even some of the editors posting here who have pushed for the removal of the "exceptions" passage. We can see that sort of outlook in this discussion. The "old" version never said "rule" either. And the limited set of "principles" set down exclude some very important naming considerations used by different Wikipedia editors and projects.  Xan  dar   12:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. You asked for comment at WP:GEOG and no doubt elsewhere, so here's mine. This discussion is largely incomprehensible - or more accurately, it assumes a corpus of knowledge that the average editor will simply not have. It is hardly alone as an RFC in having this deficiency but I don't think that is an excuse. Few people will have the time to trawl through all of the above and the associated archives and background. Please provide a simple summary identifying :
 * the problem you are trying to solve.
 * the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed solutions.
 * the above should include specific examples - i.e. which article names might change.
 * No doubt if I had the time I could figure all this out for myself, but I can't help feeling that if you could more clearly identify what it is you are trying to achieve, the answer might become a lot more obvious to all concerned. Well, you did ask. Ben   Mac  Dui  14:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I added a few words to that section and can see no reason to add anything further to it. It provides now for both recognisable names and exceptions. Perhaps there is more specific that should be there but as far as I can see anything more specific than that may be categorised for true clarity? ~ R.T.G 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Table of changes
I looks like more changes have been made to the page over the last week than have been made over the last six months. These changes were made by a small number of editors and I find it difficult to believe that all of them carry consensus.

A table of the changes shown by the diff of changes supplied by Hesperian is below:

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there you go. The policy is going through some changes to better reflect actual practice. Sounds just about right. I predict it'll settle down again soon. These things often come in waves. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus does change and it's a beautiful thing when it does. This however is a policy page. Changes to it should be sure to reflect consensus. I find it difficult to believe that so few editors could have their fingers so close to the pulse of Wiki consensus that they would have no need to discuss making so many changes to such an important document.
 * I've lettered the changes above for ease of reference. Some choice selections:
 * A: This contradicts WP:DAB regarding articles that form a primary topic, effectively ruling out primary topics across the encyclopedia.
 * B: This removes long-held conventions regarding specific topic areas. Were those communities involved in the decision to change this policy? Were they even informed in any way?
 * I: That's been here for three years. Where is the consensus to remove it?
 * J: That's been here for donkey's years! Again, where is the consensus to remove it?
 * K: GUBU
 * It's great to see consensus change - but please don't change the content of this page until consensus does first. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that policy pages have to be so static. It's not healthy to consider a policy page "such an important document". This isn't scripture, and editors are generally better off not reading policy pages. They're just our attempts to describe policy. No human can change policy by editing this page. We can just make it more or less accurate. Specific changes that you disagree with, please do discuss. The idea that editors "have no need to discuss" seems to ignore the extremely active discussion that's been attending the editing. You'll find that the editors making the edits are quite open to talking, right here, about them. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Plicy pages do not have to be static, but changes should reflect REAL changes and consensus among active editors across the community - not just what a group of four or five editors lurking on the page happen to think. I don't believe the wider community itself has changed with regard to items like B, I and J, or that the current changes to these on the policy page have consensus among editors.   Xan  dar   00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's why we're on this page discussing. Discussing the actual issues, in a calm and professional manner, is 3000% more effective than bemoaning the fact that the page is being edited. Just get more people to the discussion. That's how you fix the problem you're concerned about. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I start of with a link to Consensus can change and I get a reply stating that, "I disagree that policy pages have to be so static." We're really in the mood for listening, aren't we gentlemen?
 * "It's not healthy to consider a policy page 'such an important document'. ... editors are generally better off not reading policy pages." Take it to the Village pump. Right now, policy is policy. We are not here to discuss any change to that and neither is it the place.
 * Now, discussion take times. And there are 14 changes that need discussing. Meanwhile there are 200-odd people a day looking at this page to find out what policy is regarding, say, whether other naming conventions form exceptions to the policy on naming conventions. The WP:BRD route seems most logical here.
 * Thank you for your bold efforts. We'll now revert it and discuss the merits of each part individually. OK? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hanlon's razor. I actually listened quite well to what you said, and then failed to express myself very clearly. In particular, "static" was a poor word choice. I'll thank you not to accuse me of "not listening" when it's entirely possible that I simply didn't reply clearly. I meant that it's fine for policy pages to be edited actively, as long as the vigorous editing is accompanied by thorough discussion. I think we're trying to do that, and I do genuinely appreciate your efforts to be sure we don't miss anything. I think those efforts would be well-directed by picking one of your 14 points, and starting a section on it instead of yakking about how I didn't listen. As for "policy is policy", WP:IAR is policy. Wikipedia is fundamentally not a rules-based system. This is the place to discuss that if we're going to be alleging that this policy embodies some kind of hard-and-fast rules that have to be edited with the utmost of care. Contempt for rules is a healthy approach to Wikipedia, and I don't need the Village Pump to tell me that. Finally, as for BRD, you've missed the first 11 stops on that train. Many bold edits have been reverted and discussed. Even better than BRD is 0RR. Don't go backwards when we can instead tack, like a boat sailing into the wind. That's already going on, and I look forward to your active participation below, where the discussion that you're requesting has been going on for days. Please note that we are in almost total agreement here, except that I think time spent asking people to stop making bold edits is better spent discussing those edits. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hanlon's razor, I like that. Never heard of it before. I replied to what I saw on screen, which seem coherent except that you did not seem to be listening. Something common when editors are in dispute, which it seems you are. It's hardly "malice" on your part for you to fail to listen.
 * We need to be careful when editing policy pages. There's a notice on top of policy pages advising editors of this. It's in plain English, maybe you missed it. Or had a Hanlon lapse? People look to policy pages to find out "what is policy". They do not look to policy pages to find out "what is proposed policy" or "what is under discussion for policy". They can click on the Talk tab to find that out. What appears on the page should be consensus (or decree of Jimbo) - not what I, you or anyone else wants to be policy or are offering up for discussion.
 * "As for 'policy is policy', WP:IAR is policy." Yawn.
 * "Contempt for rules is a healthy approach to Wikipedia, and I don't need the Village Pump to tell me that." Take that to WP:BIO and see how far it gets you. But, have contempt for the rules. If the rules say X then you do Y regardless, you crazy diamond! But please don't edit policy pages to state Y. Otherwise how will other's know of your wacky contempt for the rules?
 * "Don't go backwards when we can instead tack, like a boat sailing into the wind." A plain revert at this stage is counter productive, I wouldn't support doing that (there are scores of helpful intermediate edits that should stay). What I propose is that the most controversial edits be taken out or put back in (by hand) then we can discuss the proposed changes in turn, here, on this talk page - as they should have been discussed to begin with. I don't see them being discussed below. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What I can't figure out is why you're still talking to me, when you could be spending that energy discussing these edits that you object to. Pick one, and start a section below. I'll see you there. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ... because I was at work and only had time to make quick posts. I've restored consensus on some of the more obvious elements. I also noticed new "criteria" had beene added. I've removed those since they would require consensus at least and, as noted in the text itself, were contradictory and so not very helpful as "criteria" at all.
 * The table above suffices as a discussion point. If you had difficulty figuring out why I was still talking to you it was because I was wondering when you were going to begin discussing the changes in the table above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. How very efficient. Why not wait for the person who's not bothered by the changes to start discussing them. How's that working out for you? I notice you're still talking to me, and I still don't care. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK then. Thanks for your input. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Now you're seeing it. Next time someone makes a change you don't think has consensus, discuss it and not the issue of changes w/out consensus in the abstract. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence the table of changes. Lettered A-O. Posted here for discussion. Which you haven't commented on. Are you going to discuss these changes or do you intend to proffer more wise words about sails boats tacking in the wind? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you still talking to me? I've indicated quite clearly that I don't care about the changes in your table. I'm happy either way, because I don't believe that policy is made of words on a page. If you reply to me, I can only conclude that you enjoy this. Talk. To. Someone. Who. Cares. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ? - LOL - Then stop posting in this section. This section is for discussing the table of changes. If you do not want to discuss the table of changes, or if you don't care about it, just stop posting here. Understand how it works? No-one is forcing you to post here. And no-one will hold it against you if you simply stop posting here. Get it?
 * Now, on the count of three, let's both step away from our keyboards. OK? Ready? Here we go ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It makes me very angry to think that I have wasted a month in deep and thorough discussion about this, only to have someone come in late and revert it all on the false premise that the changes were made "without discussion". At this point, the only change that has been made without discussion is the wholesale revert. Hesperian 23:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is in fact moderately useful; but the claim that none of this has been discussed is flat false. All of the additions have been discussed at length; that's what this month of talk page is.


 * The removals chiefly fall into three classes:
 * Redundancy - for example, D, F, G and I are the same point, and two of them are probably redundant.
 * Inadvertence - all four of them were removed in the process of streamlining. This was excessive - and I have, per the discussion with Hesperian below, restored the point twice.
 * Stuff that is ungrammatical, badly phrased, or does not rise to the level of policy. L falls under all three of these.
 * If  Rannpháirtí anaithnid wishes to discuss any of these, and make a case against any of these changes, he is free to do so - but he has not yet done so. Reversion without discussion - solely on the basis that it was consensus once - is contrary to policy.


 * Alternatively, and preferably, if he wishes to propose new wording, making some point the present text does not make, that may win support which the old text did not have. If everybody agreed with all of these, they would never have been changed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, PMA. The consensus and accurate version of policy remains the version that existed prior to the extensive changes made by a small group of editors on this page. THAT IS NOT HOW SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO WP POLICY ARE MADE. WP:CONLIMITED Any substantial change to policy pages must have wide community consensus before it is accepted. Simply edit-warring your preferred version on to the page PMA, does not make it "policy" or Consensus. And if Hesperian is angry that his position gets reverted, then he should make non-agreed changes on a sandbox version, rather than on the policy page.  Xan  dar   00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Boldface does not make it so.


 * There is no evidence that the old version is consensus - certainly a good many editors have thought it could be improved and said so here. Three editors and a campaign of canvassing are not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (Outdent) Some of the removed elements had been part of this policy for years (two items in particuar are donkey's years old). Consensus not only can, but does change. When it does, the change can be evidienced. I have added a column to the table whereby the place where the new consensus was agreed to can be linked. (I still don't see it, linking to it will proove your point.)
 * As you say, Pmanderson, D, F, G and I are all basically the same point so condensing them into one phrase it no great problem. I listed all major revision between the diffs provided. There were 15 in all. Some big, some small. D, F, G and I are among the small ones (and hence I didn't restore the old version for them). It's the big ones that are the problem. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the substantive changes were discussed at the time they were made; feel free to search this talk page and its archives. Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented.


 * More usefully, do discuss which ones you disagree with, and why. This may actually persuade someone to change back, or produce novel language which you will find acceptable. If there is a change you don't disagree with, we can wait for someone who does di8spute it - if there isn't anybody, it is consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course "permission" is not a requirement for consensus, but it certainly doesn't hurt to ask - particularly before making changes to the meaning of a policy document. Asking is useful to make sure that what you (or I) think is consensus, actually is. There seems to be some acrimony about the state of the page after these changes were made. If the editors that made the changes had simply checked first, that acrimony could have been avoided.
 * In any case, since a table of changes has not elicited an explanation for these changes, I've opened a new new section below. Hopefully that will elicit a more constructive response. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * With policy pages there is a much higher degree of requirement to gain consensus. Many of the changes put on the page have not even had the basic consensus among the few editors on the page itself when they were made. let alone the wider community consensus required by WP:CONLIMITED and Policy. The last thing we need is policy changes railroaded through by a small group of editors.  Xan  dar   20:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment This debate is incomprehensible. Some editors are arguing about fine points and have expanded the issue to more points than the stated question. I am in favour of the principle that article names should reflect common names most recognisable by average members of the population. This does not seem to be the case currently. For example, in a situation I am familiar with, the US navy has a convention of naming ships by (nearly) unique codes and ship articles tend to say USS America BB99. Fine for American ships, perhaps (or perhaps not, I am not american and do not know if any american would recognise such codes unless an expert) but although Royal navy ships have (non-unique) code numbers, no one in the street would recognise any of them. Yet this is used to distinguish different ships with the same common name. The obvious solution is to use construction/launch date, but a DATE. Something the man on the street can easily understand and which helps identify the correct vessel by era. This is even the common standard amongst references. Yet somehow the american naval convention means that non-unique naval designators are being used to disambiguate ships in other navies, such as the UK one ('for consistency'). How does this mess come to happen under which version of policy? I vote for a policy giving a binding convention on the adoption of user recognisable names and expressly deprecating specialist ones. Sandpiper (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral I like the text the way it was before, but I don't mind the change. Like GTBacchus said, we need to get out of the wikilayering mindset of breaches, exceptions, etc. We're not trying to lay down the law, but describe current practice here in a way that people can easily refer to. Making a list of principles seems to make sense as long as the wording is agreed to by consensus. And I agree with Sandpiper, this debate is really hard to follow. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 09:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, for all the reasons stated by many above, the removal of exceptions to "Use Common name" from the policy page clearly has agreement, which is even acknowledged by at least one editor who disagrees with the removal. But to give a specific reason for why I agree with the removal, I can do no better than to quote Knepferle: This page documents the principles, and the conventions detail their application to certain contexts, and some wording should be developed to make this clear. Calling these applications "exceptions" does not make this clear..  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes since September
There have been a number of important changes since the start of September that have made their way into document, seemingly without having emerged from common practice or discussion. (I may be wrong about this, if I am I will be happy to be find out so.) I've copied four such changes below and moved the disputed tag to the top of the page while they are under discussion. Note that I have already attempted to restore some of the previous content (or the gist of it) and this edit was subsequently reverted.

The removal of exceptions to "common name" has been discussed above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ''seemingly without having emerged from common practice or discussion.
 * Completely and profoundly mistaken; I commend the simple exercise of reading this talkpage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, PMA. Rannpháirtí, your not being around for the discussion that surrounded these changes doesn't mean it didn't happen. They came directly out of active discussion by people who actually know a little bit about how naming happens here. Where have you been, while we've been working on article naming for the last 5 years? Talk about coming out of nowhere. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, of course your wholesale undoing of what had been done, accompanied by thorough discussion, was reverted. That's why I suggested reverting piecewise, accompanied by discussion. You responded by making fun of my advice, and then doing something that I note was entirely ineffective, as I predicted. Good one. Next time, revert piecewise, while discussing. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't spot this last night. GTBacchus and PMAnderson, I hadn't contributed to this page before a few days ago. Since doing so, my impression is that there are some ownership issue going on. It seems that the two of you dominate discussion and have an unhealthy habit of responding aggressively to posts and edits contrary to your preferred version of the page. Please check your tone and manner of discussion. If you find yourself losing your cool, step back. It's easy to loose perspective and to personalize thing when you have been working on a page for a long time. (Note: This post is a rewrite of an earlier-posted version, to correct it's tone.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Criteria" (added)
"Articles titles should name or describe the subject of the article, and make Wikipedia easy to use. Article titles do this if they are:

Easy to find – Good article titles use the term by which readers are most likely to look for the article and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles. In determining what this term is, we follow the usage of reliable sources. As part of this, the name chosen for an article, while in common use, should be neither vulgar nor pedantic; readers will not expect such names.


 * Precise. Good article titles are only as precise as necessary to indicate the name of the topic unambiguously. The scope of articles does change; sometimes article titles must be updated accordingly.


 * Concise – Good article titles are short; this makes editing, typing, and searching for articles easier. This principle limits the extent to which precision is desirable; this is also one reason we use names (where they exist) in preference to descriptions.


 * Consistent – Similar articles are generally given similar titles. This also falls under the Principle of Least Astonishment: readers should not wonder why one article of a class or category has a different format from the others – unless the difference is beneficial to the encyclopedia. Consistency is often achieved by specific naming conventions for specific types of articles.

In addition, titles are constrained by unavoidable technical restrictions, including the necessity that titles be:


 * Unique – Wikipedia's software does not allow two distinct articles to have exactly the same title. (It is technically possible to make articles appear to have the same title, but this is never done, as it would be highly confusing to readers, and cause editors to make incorrect links.)

Since these are distinct criteria, they can conflict with one another; in such cases, article names are determined by consensus. Consensus on naming in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, are stated and explained in the guidelines below. When no consensus exists, it is established through discussion, always with the above principles in mind."

Discussion re "criteria"
These "criteria" seem to have come out of no where. (They were added with the comment "how's this?"). I'm concerned that they appear to supplant the established policy (viz. Use common names, Be precise when necessary, Use English words, etc.) with a hard set of "criteria". The established policy is more rounded and understanding of the fact that one size does not fit all.

Furthermore, the "criteria" admit that they can "conflict with one another". First, this makes then redundant as criteria and so not helpful to an editor coming here for advice. Second, when they do, the advice given is to determine the article title by consensus - not to read this page to know what policy is. Doesn't this nullify the rest of the page.

It seems to me that that "criteria" try to weasel their way in as policy to the detriment of the established policy. That the appear to have just popped in without discussion, only makes it worse. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, these criteria are what naming discussions actually use. They replace the vague and widely abused talk of exceptions, by explaining why we do not always use (say) the most common term all the time: because it's ambiguous, because it is the most common term for two different articles; because it makes sense to title all the townships of the United States - or the ships of the Russian navy - in the same style; because something else is the encyclopedic term, the one in a suitable register.


 * The example most often used for the last in these discussions is that there is a far more common, but improper, word for Feces, which should help you find the long discussions on the matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Second, when they do, the advice given is to determine the article title by consensus - not to read this page to know what policy is. Doesn't this nullify the rest of the page?
 * No. Policy has always been applied by consensus; nothing else can. If there were consensus to ignore some part of this page, it would be ignored - and should be changed, or become useless. The only purpose of policy or guideline pages is to summarize what Wikipedia's best practice is, to avoid having to reformulate it every time the same point comes up; they began as FAQs, and really they still are. The rest of this page still serves this purpose: to tell editors what other people think, without having a new discussion started every time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again there is not the community consensus for this selective group of criteria, and for eliminating others such as Accuracy, Non-offensiveness, Self-Identification etc. Most of the criteria in the list are pretty innocuous, but not that helpful either. The problem is that the editors who want change seem to believe these criteria solve all the naming problems that exist - which they don't.  Xan  dar   20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Accuracy, non-offensiveness, and other euphemisms for adopting the subject's point of view are as strongly opposed as WP:NPOV is supported. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar, what are you talking about? Selective group of criteria? Are you still buying into the "Wikipedia policy = legislation" myth? Wake up and smell the tooth fairy; that's nonsense. Wikipedia policy is a distillation of what actual Wikipedians agree to do, and in actual move requests, these things are what we apply. As for "eliminating" others... what? Policy is not legislation! Besides, when on Earth were "accuracy", "non-offensiveness" and "self-identification" part of the policy. Not before the edit we're discussing here! Look at that diff and tell me where you see any of those principles disappearing. The text I replaced said: "Generally, the objective is to give articles unambiguous titles that readers will most easily recognize, where recognizability is determined by what reliable sources in English call the subject. The principles and conventions listed here set out in detail how that objective is achieved." Where in there do you see "accuracy", "non-offensiveness" or "self-identification"? What edit are you talking about? Get in the trenches and help move some articles, then tell us what's what. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we talking at cross-purposes, GTB? I am talking about the "new" criteria (principles) like "conciseness," "preciseness", etc. As far as I can see they are pretty selective and arbitrary. I think "accuracy", "self-identification," and "non-offensiveness" are at least as valid to be principles considered in naming articles. Nor are these "euphemisms for adopting a subject's point of view" as PMA claims. I would hazard that the first thing editors actually do when naming an article is look at what the subject calls itself, rather than exhaustively polling reliable sources covering the subject. Non-offensiveness speaks for itself. Not using offensive names is hardly POV, just good practice, and the best way to avoid endless edit-conflict. Accuracy is indeed something that should be considered. "Britain" may be a common name, but is it accurate? That's one reason why we use the less common United Kingdom. As far as going to the "Trenches", that's where I like to be - editing articles, not engaging in long dialogues on policy changes. But policy cannot be left just to a few people who enjoy meddling adapting it. "Trenches" editors have to be involved too.  Xan  dar   22:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No responsible editor would look first at what the subject has to say about itself; that's a recipe for canned spam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it bears repeating once again that these criteria are, and must continue to be, rooted in actual practice. Xandar, if you think "self-identification" should be a criteria, convince us not with logic, but with evidence that people really do take self-identification into account when choosing names. Show us some discussions where self-identification won the day over other principles. So far, the only examples you have brought have been heavily disputed cases where there is no agreement over whether self-identification should be taken into account. These constitute evidence against your position. Hesperian 05:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some examples of self-identifying names being used ahead of common-names on Wikipedia include
 * Unification Church vs Moonies
 * Guangzhou vs Canton
 * Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria vs Coptic Church
 * Côte d'Ivoire vs Ivory Coast
 * Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church vs Ethiopian Coptic Church or Ethiopian Orthodox Church
 * Kolkata vs Calcutta
 * Canadian Forces Maritime Command vs Canadian Navy
 * Royal Malaysian Navy vs Malaysian Navy
 * Russian Ground Forces vs Russian Army
 * Inuit vs Eskimo
 * Ho Chi Minh City v Saigon
 * Romany vs Gypsy
 * Indigenous Australians vs Aborigines
 * Dalits vs Untouchables
 * Indigenous peoples of the Americas vs Red Indians or American Indians
 * Native Americans in the United States vs American Indians
 * First Nations vs Canadian Indians
 * Derry Londonderry is the official name.
 * Republic of China not Taiwan
 * Self identifying names are used for Sports team articles and in many situations where ethnic disputes arise as to which of several names to use, as in Talk:Communes of the province of Bolzano-Bozen. Self-identification played a part in the Macedonia naming solution and in the current Ireland debate.  Xan  dar   00:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar has been repeating this tattered lie in many places; I suppose it is time for it to show up here. Very few of these placements have even been affected by self-identifying names, for several different reasons:
 * For some of them (Coptic Church, Ethiopian Coptic Church), the name he claims is rejected has never been discussed; we do not know what would happen if it were.
 * For some of them, this is a choice between self-identifying names (Canadian Navy/Canadian Forces Maritime Command and the other navies; Canadian Navy is ambiguous - it can and most often does mean the Royal Canadian Navy, which ceased to exist in 1968.)
 * For some of them (Cote d'Ivoire, Kolkata, Guangzhou) we are using the name that a consensus feels is most common. The discussion of Cote d'Ivoire is particularly clear; several users would not have accepted the self-identifying name had it not also been most common.
 * We use both Derry and County Londonderry; for both of them, this is a conflict between self-identifying names. (As in the real world, the Irish had sense enough to compromise.)
 * And then there are several instances of politically correct names for tribal groups, which are a separate question. They probably are the most common usage in modern reliable sources; where they are not, they are POV and we should not use them (although we should mention them and redirect from them). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PMA I wish you would take note of and follow No personal attacks. Constant abusiveness reveals weakness of argument.
 * Indeed, it does; Xandar has been consistently abusive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear that what are being used in the examples above (some of which you try to refute) are the self-identifying rather than the common names of the entities - a principle clearly set out in the MOS and in other guidance. Your notion that editors have to place a note in the talk page to prove they're using self-identifying names when this is quite obvious from the usage, strains credibility.
 * Canadian Navy is the common name for the Canadian Forces Maritime Command. The former official name was Royal Canadian Navy, the present one is the one the article is at. Canton is the most common name for Guangzhou, as is Calcutta for Kolkata. Again trying to deny that these are self-identifying names strains credence.
 * Lie. The Royal Canadian Navy was absorbed into a unified force. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Derry is the self-identifying name of the city - as voted by the council. So it is used for the city by Wikipedia. Londonderry is used for the county since that has not changed its name in a manner such as to indicate self-identification.
 * This smacks of "the name Xandar likes is self-identifying". But this is not why it was done; or why the most recent move discussion retained it. (In the process of that discussion, a court decision came up that ruled that the city's name is Londonderry, and all the Council did was change its own name; this is a typical problem for the unfortunate idea of "self-identifying names".) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea that Wikipedia should, as you suggest, mandate the using of offensive names for various peoples and communities, in order to comply with an unwanted newly-introduced rigid rule of Wikipedia naming - is the best reason to reject such a rigid top-down rule. The fact is that many of the common names currently replaced by self-identifying names ARE considered offensive by the entities concerned, yet they remain the most common names, even in reliable sources. Attempting to force such names on people is a sure recipe for continual edit-warfare across Wikipedia.  Xan  dar  23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself in different words—I rather feel like I'm circling the one point without getting any closer to finding it—it seems to me that some topic areas come with a nomenclature more or less stapled to them. Books have titles; albums have titles; businesses (like sports teams and churches) have lawfully registered names. In such fields these names tend to be adopted. This has nothing to do with self-identification, yet accounts for the majority of examples above. The remaining examples do indeed reflect self-identification, but it is mediated by broader usage: Xandar is saying We use "Indigenous Australians" because Indigenous Australians identify as "Indigenous Australians"; but in fact this misses an intermediate step. It would be more accurate to say We use "Indigenous Australians" because the Australian government and the Australian media and Australian publishers on matters related to Indigenous affairs all use "Indigenous Australians" because Indigenous Australians identify as "Indigenous Australians". Therefore there is no need for "self-identification" in order to explain the names; we are simply following broader usage in reliable sources. Hesperian 03:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. official names ARE generally self-identifying names - and they are used a great deal on Wikipedia. Something that should be documented on the page. The bare "Rule" says common names are the majority names found in reliable sources. This is often not the official or self-identifying name as used in Wikipedia. In Republic of China self-identification is the only possible reason for the use of this name over "Taiwan".
 * In addition, I would quarrel with the idea that Indigenous Australians is the majority name used by reliable sources in English. To avoid the offensive term, one would have to start creating an array of new sub-rules, limiting the "reliable sources" and specifying what country and range they would have in order to get to the desired result without using the far simpler, long-standing principle of respecting self-identification. In fact the principle of self-identification was clearly made in the Derry, Ireland, and Macedonia disputes.  Xan  dar   00:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, there are several cases where we have expressly chosen not to use a self identifying name, even though that argument was made:
 * Kiev, not Kyiv
 * Bangalore, not Bengaluru
 * Burma, not Myanmar. (Again, a conflict between self-identifying names, used by different groups within the self; but the cry of ''self-identification was made most loudly by the faction who would have kept Myanmar - but it was moved.
 * North Korea, not Democratic People's Republic of Korea
 * Merano, not Meran (Again, a conflict between self-identifying names, with the Italian Government and the town administration using both; but the most recent move discussion was by someone who claimed that the 51% germanophone majority self-identified as Meran; decided on usage).
 * As further examples of quite well-known articles, where "self-identification" would never be considered:
 * Germany, not Federal Republic of Germany
 * Weimar Republic not German Empire.
 * Alice Liddell, not Alice Hargreaves.
 * Burma and Merano are still in dispute because the principle of self-identification was passed over (largely on the grounds that the self-identification was marginal or contested.) Germany follows the standard pattern of using the short rather than the formal form of the name, ie United States versus United States of America. "Weimar republic" is a historical name and so not subject to self-identification, since it no longer exists to self-identify.  Xan  dar   00:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there was consensus adjudged at each, and neither is currently disputed. We can, and must, find consensus despite the existence of a handful of irreconcilables. To do otherwise is to hand a veto to every crank. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing break in "criteria" discussion
The problem is that these principles have no application to how most articles were named. While you can certainly find examples in which some of them were applied, often most if not all of them were not applied. The vast majority of articles have topics with a single clear and obvious commonly used name that is either unambiguous with respect to topics covered in Wikipedia, or that topic is the primary use of that name, and so that name is the title of that article. All of these principles only begin to apply to the minority of articles for which all of the above is not true, yet the current revision implies that they apply to all articles. This needs to be addressed. I'm not sure exactly how it should be addressed, but I suspect that something akin to my simple algorithm suggestion above would be a move in the right direction. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, in most cases, your simple algorithm achieves all of them: the United Kingdom, for example. That is recognizable, concise, easy to find, unambiguous (with anything anywhere near so common), and consistent with United States. Quite so; but it is not clear (has anybody tested it?) that United Kingdom is more common than UK or United Kingdom of Great Britain. No one has suggested those names because UK is unencyclopedic (and so hard to find) and feels ambiguous; and United Kingdom of Great Britain is clumsy - the pedantically accurate United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is much more so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for using the word "principles" Born2cycle. They're not "criteria" - I see that I used that word - a poor choice - thanks for the correction, however obtusely delivered. They're certainly not "hard"(?). Construing these consistently-used principle s as "hard criteria" and "one size fits all", is bizarre, and contrary to the spirit of policy here. These ideas, as noted above by PMAnderson, who works in Requested Moves, are how articles really are named. I wrote them down based on actual experience in the field working in Requested Moves for years alongside PMA, completing thousands of requests. I also made that edit per a specific request on this talk page to do so. "Why don't you jump in and help us edit it GT?" "Ok, how's this?" Without discussion, my fanny. Obviously, when names are unambiguous, there's no problem, and no need to appeal to naming conventions. Everyone knows that Asia is called "Asia", and nobody is suggesting that we rename that article. Now, Rannpháirtí anaithnid claims above that these "criteria" - which they are not - are "supplanting" established policy such as COMMONNAME PRECISE, UE. However, that's precisely what these principles say. Use common names, in English. Is that not what's recognizable? I don't care what you call it, "Recognizable" or "Commonly used in English". The point is, it's what we do. "Be precise when necessary" - which I'd correct to "Be as precise as necessary" is what I (cryptically?) called "Precision". Moving on in Rannpháirtí's remarks, how conflicting with each other makes principles "redundant" seems to be a crime against English. "Redundant" means overlapping, repeating each other; not conflicting. That's the opposite of what "redundant" means. I have no idea what you were trying to say there. I'll repeat what I said to Xandar, Rannpháirtí - get some actual experience working with article naming, and then you tell us what the community really does. Until then, you're speaking from ignorance: Ignorance of community practice, and extreme ignorance of how policy works here. "Hard criteria" - what a load of rubbish. Do your homework. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * GTB - Yes, everyone knows that the name of Asia is Asia, but in some cases some might see a basis to go with a description that abides by these principles as the title rather than use the name for the topic that is readily available. That's why I think it's important to make clear here in policy that the first naming principle is to use the obvious name if there is one, and all this other stuff only even applies when that's not the case.  The written policy, conventions and guidelines should aid editors in determining the appropriate title for an article, not provide basis for a myriad of conflicting choices.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly what the intention was with this edit, namely to provide principles to aid editors in determining the appropriate title for an article. I don't see this "myriad of conflicting choices", nor do I see any justification in these principles to deviate from a readily available name. Wouldn't a readily available name, which you favor, be the most recognizable, easy to find via searching and linking, and concise? Precision/uniqueness is an issue, because John Smith is a readily available title for many articles, but I don't sense that's what you're taking issue with. Or is it? Can you provide an example of where the principles in my edit (or those listed above) would lead someone astray? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @GTBacchus - temper your tone, please. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, that was inappropriate. I apologize to all participants here for letting my irritation with other editors infect my tone and demeanor. Any personal issue I have should be dealt with elsewhere, so as not to derail this important discussion. Thank you for correcting me, Rannpháirtí anaithnid. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Adds: it is the "criteria" (plural) that I say become "redundant" ("no longer needed or useful, superfluous") when they conflict, not any individual criterion (singular). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This still does not comport with my understanding of how that word is used, but I think I know what you mean. I'll allow that you're simply using a construction with which I'm not familiar; it's not important. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the claim that these have come out of nowhere, please see Naming conventions/Proposal/Draft, a draft that was written back in February, which articulates an almost identical set of principles. This came about towards the end of around four months of discussion about whether, and how, the naming convention could be reconciled with the naming guidelines on plant taxa. If follows that the changes made this month have been under discussion for a year now. I don't mind us going over some of this ground again for the benefit of those who have come in late, but it would be a great help if latecomers would acknowledge that they have missed a great deal of discussion and may not be aware of consensus, rather than making baseless claims that discussion has not occurred and/or consensus does not exist. Hesperian 03:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here may be the single use of "criteria". While these are criteria, calling them "tests" or "goals" or "principles" may clarify things; I've substituted the first; either of the others would be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @Hesperian - Thanks for that. It certainly did help. As a "late comer" there is no indication of where these "criteria" came from. Can you point me to where further discussion of them took place (the talk page for the link you gave is quite short). From reading through that page it looks like they were originally indended as a fundamental rewrite (is that correct)? If so, they make sense (I don't mean this as a hard endorse above the established policy, just to acknowledge that they are far from wacky in any way). It is their co-existence alongside the established policy that, to my mind, causes a contradiction. That how I get the impression that they are "muscling" their way in. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW - I'm merely watching this discussion take place for now. Just to say, my position right now is that it looks like these "principles" (a far better word than "criteria") should either go forward as a wholly new approach (they are not bad in their selves) or be laid to the side. It's having the new "principles" and the established policy sitting together in a single document that, to my mind, causes difficulty. I also don't think it tenable to say that the new "principles" have consensus even among the small group of editors taking part in discussion here. Maybe an approach would be to open a wider community based RFC merely to comment on them? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be clearer to me what you mean if you weren't using these quotation marks. Principles are principles. Objections to wording are dealt with; super. The principles are nothing resembling new, they're gathered in the field over the last many years. They're older than this page. The group editing this page have almost nothing to do with determining consensus. That's been determined by thousands of editors out there. All we do is attempt to record the decisions they've made, not by taking part in a poll, but by actions - thousands of actions. Those constitute policy; this is just a place where we try to accurately write down what we've witnessed out there. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * However certain other long-standing principles such as Accuracy (quite different from Precision as defined here), and Self-identification, have been left off the list. These are, to my mind, and to those of a lot of WP editors, quite important principles.  Xan  dar   22:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should list all the principles that are used in consensus backed naming decisions. I'm not suggesting leaving any particular one off. I am suggesting that specific ones be discussed specifically, not with an eye to whether edits have been properly made, but with an eye to finding out what principles really are used to name pages around here. Brainstorming up a list seems like a good way to start, but I've already tried that once... :/ -GTBacchus(talk) 23:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Where there are several meanings (added)
"Readers should not have to read into the article to find which of several meanings of the title is the actual subject, but there is no virtue in excess."

Discussion re "several meanings"
The addition of this advice seems assume that all article with titles that are similar will be dabbed using a dab page. In cases where primary topics exist or where one of the topics can be placed at an alternative title, this is not the case. Hat links are the established means to dab article titles where the title of one article may refer to something else. Common practice is not to require all articles be placed at an completely unambiguous title. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, in fact, it is far more likely that a reader will come to an article using a search engine, such as our own; in which case he is likely to have the title, and nothing else, available to him. This is in no sense intended to overrule Primary Sense, and I will add a note that it does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the title should tell "what an article is about", but I think the way that this sentence is phrased need to be thrashed out a bit more. It is an important point that is expresses (now that I understand what it meant by it), but that point wasn't made clearly enough by the text alone.
 * And, yes, we do need to assume that a reader has a title in mind and nothing more - even a search engine is too vast of an assumption. A rule of thumb that I would offer is that you should be able to find an article using the URL bar on your browser only (e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INSERT_TITLE_HERE). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to reword. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll write something and post it here for review. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

...the most commonly used name... (replaced)
Old version: "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. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded."

New version: "A good title will name the article with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize and associate with the topic in question; we generally follow the most commonly used name verifiably used in reliable sources in English."

Discussion re "most commonly used name"
The established version referred to exceptions in other naming conventions, the new way makes no reference to the fact that there are always exceptions and nuances. "Common name" seems to have been put to the wayside in favour of now using what "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize and associate with the topic in question"? The new wording seems to overly complicate quite a simple thing. Gone too is the admission that it is not always possible to use what "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize and associate with the topic in question". It also gave a positive instruction ("...title an article using...") rather than a simple value judgement ("a good title will"). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a value judgment. All conventions are value judgments: that it is better for the encyclopedia to do A than B; it is most effective and most civil to express them as such rather as orders: "Do A! Don't do B!". This page is intended to summarize what WP actually does as best practice, which is our true policy, not prescribe what some editors think. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's is not incivil to provide instructions. If you buy flat pack furniture, it will instruct you to "Insert screw A into section B". It will not tell you that, "Inserting screw A into section B is good." (Note, no need for exclamation marks.)
 * We are writing policy here, not considering the metaphysical qualities of naming conventions. We can discuss what makes "a good title" as part of that, but fundamentally we should provide clarity above whimsical expressions of what is "good".
 * (NB: Something may simply be lost on me in translations from American English - but if so, policy documents that are clear only to Americans are not well written.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Common Name never was simple - although some editors would like to simplify it; it allowed for disambiguation, because it conflicts with Uniqueness; it allowed for subordinate conventions, which follow Consistency; and so on. We always did these things; now we also explain them.


 * Common Name was always a tool, employed because it produces good results. Consider the following dialogue:


 * A: Why use common names?
 * B:Because our readers will recognize them:
 * A: Why have names the readers will recognize?
 * B: Huh? would you rather have arbitrary names?


 * The difference is that Common Names are good and useful for something; Recognizability is good in itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is the attempt to remove reference to the exceptions to "use common name" provided by the policy that is the most controversial of the proposed changes to the document. Of course removing the exceptions clause is wrong precisely because it does NOT summarise what Wikipedia actually does, in other words DEVOLVE the question of when and where to advise exceptions to the guidelines. Instead it attempts to impose a diktat from above. All I can see coming out of that is conflict across Wikipedia. And this change does not have any consensus at all behind it other than a majority of three to two editors reverting in an edit-war.   Xan  dar   20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly it is not too soon to remind Xandar of this discussion; he has already been blocked for attempting to revert-war his isolated opinion into policy. It is not so; it never was. No change of policy has been performed here; merely a clarification of what has always been done: that we do use Common Name unless there is a good reason why not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you trying to make a point out of a biased and improper block for an edit-war you began. The simple fact is that you and a couple of others edit-warred a contested change on to the page against Wikipedia practice and policy. These matters will be fully investigated. What is true, however, that such a change to the page does not reflect policy until there is wide community consensus for such a change. So far that doesn't exist.  Xan  dar   22:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Common name" is mere utility. It is, for example, recognisability that we may want (among other things). We could, maybe, list all of the qualities that "common name" captures. We would likely miss some and place undue weight on others. It would be quite a long document - "common name", as you write, is not simple. Its advantage, instead, is that it is extremely useful. In two words it captures a great deal of what we want to say. It's easily understood. Easily expressed. That is its utility. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that "except where other naming conventions indicate otherwise" is good, and should be embodied in the page in some way. I don't care how, but it's true. Certain domains within Wikipedia have their own conventions. Royalty, Japanese names, Flora, Ammunition... the list goes on. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But they do so because they are achieving some other good (usually Consistency); not out of mere arbitrariness. We already acknowledge this in the lead, but what would you add? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd add anything. If it's acknowledged in the policy that subdomains often establish their own consensus-backed conventions that might otherwise seem to conflict with the main ones, then I'm happy. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just thinking out loud and I don't have an example ready to discuss. Common names are useful to find the article, but finding an article and naming an article are two different things. The common name is not as important to me as the proper name. After one reads the article they understand why the article is named the way it is. The Metallica album comes to mind here. To me commonness loses its value IF its importance is built solely on the foundation that readers need to find articles. Does this make sense or am I missing something about the value of common names. -- Storm  Rider  07:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this distinction make any effective difference? What is the "proper" name of Kiev? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are (at least) two practical limits to this: 1.) if a user cannot find an article then they'll never know what was the "right" title, 2.) we cannot depend on technological solutions to such as redirect pages (see my comment here for an explanation). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we prefer English names or names in another language? What if there is a guideline that conflicts with the policy in this regard? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * English, unless English has adopted the foreign name; see WP:UE: Florence, but not Leghorn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * @GTBacchus and @Pmanderson - it doesn't hurt to say it. Editors have a bad habit of quoting policy as if it were gospel. If it only take tacking on a clause or adding an additional sentence to make any section stand up on its own then I think it's better. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Say what, exactly? You know what you meant by it, but we don't. As a best guess, I think you want to say that using the most common name is not always possible; if that's not visible in the comments on conflict, perhaps it should be added. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * it = "except where other naming conventions indicate otherwise" (in reply to the exchange between yourself and GTBacchus way up above) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 03:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. The other naming conventions implement this policy; they should not, and generally do not, change it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes, but we are talking about the exceptions to the rule ("Except where..."). Buttercup is the common name, but Naming conventions (flora) says otherwise. Hence Ranunculus is where it is at, and where it has been, unquestioned since being created in March 2004. Thus, exceptions do apply. That's just how things stand.
 * I take it from your comments elsewhere you don't agree with this (and I would have sympathty for your arguement) but practicice as it is right now is to follow the exceptions given by guidelines in topic-specific conventions - they clearly have consensus to contradict this main policy page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they don't -largely because they don't contradict it; however, such a consensus would be invalid if it existed. Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Largely they don't, but occasionally they do - as in the case of some kinds of flowers. But more to the point, the exceptions didn't contradict policy ... until the "Except when..." clause was removed (apparantly without consensus, or even, it would seem, great thought). So, let's put that part back then shall we? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me explain in more detail. I think Ranunculus is harmless and proper; unlike Tulip tree, it has a different scope than an article on buttercups would have (we should also have, by publication, an article on the history, mythology, and so forth, of the buttercup, and how they differ from the rest of the ranunculi; but there's no rush). In fact, ranunculus is the common name for the genus; one sign of this is that it is often used lower case and out of italics.
 * This is an example of a question on how to implement this policy, not whether to contradict it. It would be a contradiction if this page said "always use common names"; but it doesn't, and never has.
 * Our special naming conventions came into being for two reasons: When common name is impossible, as with Henry IV or Route 1, which are the most common names of several articles, we might as well disambiguate all the names in a subject the same way; and we should document that way. There may also be other good reasons to not use a common name, and the conventions document that too.
 * The sentence you quote was intended to say that. But it can be abused by any little group of wilfull editors who want their field to avoid common names to satisfy a point of view; that's what was wrong with WP:MOSMAC.
 * What has been done, therefore, is to list the good reasons to do something else here, and call them principles; that's really all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think whole ranks and categories of editors on Wikipedia can be accused of being "a little group of wilful editors" as PMA labels those who disagree with his plan to impose diktats from above. There are good reasons when Common Names may not be appropriate, and that decision is devolved downward, not laid down rigidly from the top. The "Principles" at the top of the page do not by any means cover all of the many editing considerations that arise in connection with naming. The simple statement needs to remain that one of the jobs of the individual conventions is to document specific exceptions or alternate advice for specific situations that are not set out on this page.  Xan  dar   23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read and comply with WP:NPA. In the mean time, I hope this off-topic rambling will not interfere with the useful discussion above; if anyone wants a picture of one little group of wilfull editors, see WP:ARBMAC, and WP:ARBMAC2. There have, of course, been even smaller and more fanatical pressure groups in Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "But it can be abused by any little group of wilfull editors who want their field to avoid common names to satisfy a point of view..." I appreciate your concern.
 * I worked a lot on the Ireland-related articles where similar issues with Britain exist as do between Macedonia and Greece. The issue is not always so clear cut. There is one term I'm thinking of that is regularly faought over by British and Irish editors. It's a common enough term but one rarely actually seen in print (nearly always another term will be better in any given context). However, if a person wanted to fit it into a sentence, it would be quite easy. From time to time, a (tiny) minority of British editors will see fit to weasel it into as many articles as they can just to cause trouble (often in reprisal for some perceived slight they suffered elsewhere at the hands of Irish editors). When pulled on it, they scream "common name!" and war ensues.
 * I tell this story not to apologise for anyone, but to say that things are not so simple. Wilfull editors will abuse the rules whatever the rules may be. This is not the place for dealing with it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, wilfull editors will abuse whatever rules there are; one of the goals of good policy writing is nevertheless to make it hard for them to do, avoiding obviously abusable wording. Not so? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the replacement useful, and am prepared to change back to the prior, more stable wording. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

...name given to the article by it's creator (removed)
"When there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail."

Discussion re "given by article's creator"
The joy of this was that it always allowed for an emergency stop button. Where no consensus for a change existed, the we could default to the title given by the article creators. A common sense solution where no logical solution existed. Taking out the emergency stop seems to assume that there always will be (or always should be) a definitive answer for what to title an article. Reality is that there is not. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As with MOS, the better safety stop is to the last stable title. Privileging article craators only excuses WP:OWN violations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in practice... Rannpháirtí, please name 3 articles where the "given by the article's creator" clause has been used as an emergency stop button. Since you know about the "joy" of this, you've seen it happen, yes? Please show us, I'd like to know. I'm thinking about a bowl of.... Yogurt. I'm thinking about a lot of times before this month that the "first author" principle has been rejected by the community. The more well-supported emergency stop is just that. Stop. Wherever the article has been sitting, leave it. No moves from one controversial name to another. That's the reality. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can look back through my edits and easily find more than three where the name has been kept as it was the name of the article after it had ceased to be stub. Take for example Gasoline, and Tram which are two I can think of with no problem. -- PBS (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble with "Wherever the article has been sitting, leave it. No moves from one controversial name to another. That's the reality." tends to lead to bold moves to gain the high ground, and the logic that you are suggesting, also leads often to the original name as a move from that name is often a move from one controversial name to another. I have no problem with stability rule, but often this is not as simple as it sounds. How long before stability is established? For example if an article has been at one name for two years but at another name for six months, is the name it is currently at the stable one? what about six weeks, six days ...? -- PBS (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one line is, if the bold move has been accepted in silence until it was discussed, it serves as the emergency stop; consensus can still overturn it, but it's default if there isn't one (however, disgruntled editors are perfectly within their rights to tag, for example). If a bold move is protested immediately and continuously, it isn't stable, and the emergency stop is the previous stable state (if there is one). Thoughts? I'm trying to phrase these so that the yoghurt culture wars fall in the middle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a "stable name" is better stop point rather than (what could be) an arbitrary "creator's name". If that stop point is the "creator's name" then so be it, but if the page has gone through a stable page move since then then that last stable move point is the stop point. There are plenty of examples of where the "creator's name" are simply not acceptable as a title - not only malicious examples, but simply where the title didn't fit with naming conventions for grammar, capitalisation, etc. But the aim, as I read, of that section was to maintain stability and common sense. (I'm guessing that "creator's name" may be a legacy from when the encylopedia had not grown so large and pages had not yet regularly undergone multiple moves between different titles.)
 * IMHO no "emergency stop" point should be used to silence discussion though - but I don't think it would hurt to suggest that one stable name that fits with convention is as good as any other. Articles ping-ponging between two suitable titles is no good for the encyclopedia. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that "stable" should not be used to silence discussion. If you can think of a cleaner way to say this, fine; if not, it's already in policy elsewhere.


 * Is this resolved? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears to be; if someone wants to reopen this, do remove the tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we OK with reinserting something similar but with changes akin to "stable name" etc.? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistent
"Consistent – Similar articles are generally given similar titles. This also falls under the Principle of Least Astonishment: readers should not wonder why one article of a class or category has a different format from the others – unless the difference is beneficial to the encyclopedia. Consistency is often achieved by specific naming conventions for specific types of articles."

As I have said several times I think that to have this is a bad idea. I am not against it appearing in some of the guidelines as a way to clarify some areas, (Eg in Naming conventions (names and titles), but it should not be in the policy.

Many of the guidelines like WP:NC (names and titles) were developed before reliable sources was put into this policy page, and as such were sensible workarounds to the problems of non reliable sources being used to determine names, as in "Bloody Mary" for Queen Mary I.

I think it fundamentally undermines many of the other principles that are listed on this page. If this goes through we end up back in arguments about whether "Military of the United Kingdom" is the correct title or "armed forces of the United Kingdom," or "British Armed Forces". For a long time all most all articles about military forces of a country were named "Military of ..." even when the reliable sources did not use that name because they were a set. Another example is "Occupation of ... by Nazi Germany" whether or not Germany had ever occupied the country before "Occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany" or if the country had ever been occupied (eg "Occupation of the Channel Islands by Nazi Germany". Who is to say that such consistence is desirable, particularly as "Nazi Germany" carries a political connotations and is unnecessary unless Germany occupied a country more than once eg "poor little Belgium".

We should not be promoting in the lead of the policy a suggestion that descriptive names should be used in preference to the names commonly used in reliable sources, because it fits in with some editors idea of neat and tidy categories. (I have for example seen in the past that the article Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein should be renamed to Bernard Montgomery because the length of the article title his name spoils the format of some of the categories into which he was included (after all non of the American generals who fought in Europe had such long names). It could be argued that as this is part of policy it overrides the suggestions in WP:NC (names and titles), and if Monty is in a category of Allied commanders for the European Theater his article should have a name without the title as it will be less astonishing to those who look in the category. Now those sensible editors reading this will probably say that is ridiculous, but I put it to you that the muppets will try to use it to insist that article names should fit a pattern ... . -- PBS (talk)
 * If it is not mentioned in the policy as a possibility, some users will be moving to suppress the convention as a violation of policy. Since the use of full titles of peers and of city, state in the United States, for example, are supported by a strong majority as a principle, and very often in practice, this would not reflect consensus.


 * General Montgomery may fall into the acknowledged exception in WP:NCNT for peers not normally known by their titles (Bertrand Russell, Anthony Eden, Tony Benn). He shares several cats with John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, however; and in, he would look somewhat underdressed without his title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether General Montfomery falls into an acknowledged exception in WP:NCNT, is besides the point I was making (as that is a question of sources). The point I was making is that consistency should not be promoted to the same level as precision and common names, as it can be used to undermine those concepts. It is one think to place it in a guideline in such cases as WP:NC (names and titles), but not as it is done in WP:NC (flora) and certainly not as it is done in free range sets such as "Military of ..." -- PBS (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. In fact, I think consistancy should be elevated above CN, in many cases.  I'm not sure about "military of ...", but WP:NC (flora) seems necessary for someone to be able to find appropriate articles; making the common name primary would make the frequent situation of multiple common names for the same scientific name, and the same common name referring to multiple scientific  names, an exception to the existing principles.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A problem soluble by dab pages.


 * But PBS is right to the extent that precision and common names can conflict with consistency, as they can conflict with each other. Sometimes they should give way to consistency; sometimes consistency, as with the 3rd Earl Russell, should give way to them.


 * I think Flora should give way to common name more often than it does - but in a small percentage of their actual articles: Tulip tree is precise, unambiguous, and common usage, and we should use it rather than Liriodendron, which is pedantry, as much as using Firenze. Most Italian towns don't have another name in English; most plant taxa don't have a commonly used name in English either - but when they do we should use them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But isn't there another plant also known as the tulip tree? (If so, it's quite possible that no one here would know.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is, the article fails to mention it; but we can fall back on our usual position: disambiguate (with the Latin name, here) when necessary. (There are two species in a single genus, which is what the article now covers - but either Liriodendron or tulip tree would be an unambiguous name for the genus.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this Flora should be at the Internationally agreed naming convention that has been in place for some 300 years, not at common name(latin name). There has been considerable discussion over exactly this and there has never been consensus to use "common name" nor dab with "common name(latin name)". Gnangarra
 * I don't think PMA's "disambiguate (with the Latin name, here)" comment means what you are thinking it does. He is simply saying that articles about plants with well-known common names that need disambiguating may take scientific names as their titles, but articles about plants with well-known common names that don't need disambiguating should take be titled with those unambiguous well-known common names. As far as I can tell, PMA accept the broad principles underlying the flora naming convention, and accepts that these principles lead to the scientific name in nearly all cases; but he thinks we should use the common name somewhat more often than we do. Hesperian 06:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hesperian. Exactly so. In any case, that is my opinion on WP:FLORA; it has not been written into policy here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as we are allowed to use the primary common name, I think I also agree. I don't agree that we should automatically select a scientific name when there are multiple common names when one is clearly the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I happen to think that Hesperian is incorrect because the WP:NC (flora) guideline is the only one which starts out from a premise that ignores common names as used in reliable sources (whether that be a Latin or something else). Instead it states "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following ...", and the editors who cite that guideline have been resistant to changing it so that it starts from common names and then builds upon that to tackle problems that are specific to a flora.

However I want to lay that aside for the moment, and consider the wording not in relation to the guidelines, but what I have described as "free range" naming sets such as "Military of ..." and "Occupation of ... by Nazi Germany". Having a bullet point on "Consistent" that suggests that free range name sets are desirable, when it is not desirable if we are serious about using sources to determine the names of articles. At the very least the wording needs to be altered so that it only applies to extensions to the general conventions in specific conventions and guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Another area where the current wording causes problems is with national varieties of English for example for Orange (colour) see Talk:Orange (colour). -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to "editors who cite that guideline have been resistant to changing it", I present Exhibit A, Naming conventions (flora)/Draft, which starts from the principle of "using the most common name in English, provided this is unbiased, sufficiently precise, and sufficiently unambiguous", is far closer in tone to this convention than is the current flora convention, was generally supported by the "editors who cite that guideline", yet was blocked by none other than Philip Baird Shearer. Hesperian 11:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it can be denied that Consistency is a popular objective in the naming of articles. Sometimes it's carried to absurd lengths, but that doesn't mean we should pretend it doesn't play a big part in the process. As with all things, we should make clear that it's not the sole criterion, but needs to be balanced with others.--Kotniski (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be a minor consideration, or it can be used to undermine many other parts of the policy as is shown by Talk:Orange (colour). Better it is done under IAR than that it is promoted alongside, Recognition, Precision and Concision. -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a minor consideration though, much as some of us might like it to be.--Kotniski (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistent? Absurd!
Consistency in a subset of articles, that allows for articles within that subset to be named consistently with other articles in that subset, but inconsistently with articles in the rest of Wikipedia, is not consistency, but absurdity. It's using the rationalization of consistency in order to defend inconsistency. Thus we have fauna consistent with the rest of Wikipedia (using English common names) but inconsistent with flora (which uses Latin scientific names). We have U.S. cities using city, state predisambiguation to be "consistent" with each other, except it's inconsistent with how most cities in the world are named, and even inconsistent with how some well-known cities in the U.S. are named (like Boston, New York City and Los Angeles), not to mention most other topics like film and TV episode titles which are only disambiguated per the specific naming conventions when required. This idea of subset "consistency" is anything but consistent. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's something absurd here, but it's the statement above. It should be noted that New York City and Los Angeles, your "shining examples", clearly should be disambiguation pages, as which of the related locations is primary is quite open.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You make my point, Arthur, because the argument that New York City and Los Angeles should be dabbed because there is no primary use for those names would be consistent with Wikipedia-wide naming policy, guidelines and conventions. It's the argument that they should be dabbed even if they are primary "in order to be consistent" that is inconsistent with (most of) the rest of Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite. You were the one insisting that Los Angeles not be a dab, quoting WP:NC (CN).  I agree with your statement that it should be a dab.  Why don't you fix it?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I disagree with the argument that there is no primary use of the name - I think the city of Los Angeles is clearly the primary use of Los Angeles. So I support the current name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as well as WP:NC and WP:NC (CN).  And I respect that reasonable people can disagree on individual cases such as this, and Las Vegas, Nevada.   But the main thing is that the arguments made are based on the consistently applied naming policy, guidelines and conventions, and not on special case guidelines that are inconsistent with, or override, the broader/general policy, conventions and guidelines.  More specific guidelines should "fill in the gaps", so to speak, as needed, not contradict what the more general stuff calls for.  Now, I support WP:IAR in certain special case per article situations, of course, but see no basis, certainly not in the name of "consistency", for a specific guideline that applies to an entire subset of articles and specifically calls for editor behavior that is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia.  That's not consistency, that's absurdity.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see specific practices for specific situations as absurdity. One rule fits all will not work for 3 million articles. And anyway, we're not laying down rules for Wikipedia editors to follow, but documenting whjat Wikipedia practice actually IS.  Xan  dar   23:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see "specific practices for specific situations as absurdity" either. That's a straw man. What I see as absurdity is specific practices that are inconsistent with general practices justified as consistency! We should be able to document what the practices are without referring to inconsistent practices as being consistent. Yet "consistent" is the name we're giving to this principle of inconsistency.  Absurd! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) If you really want to accurately describe current practice in some corners of Wikipedia, the section currently states:
 * Consistent – Similar articles are generally given similar titles.

What it should state:
 * Inconsistent - All of the above are sometimes ignored in order to create titles named inconsistently with the above in order for titles among similar articles to be named similarly.

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

All of this is irrelevant. If there is consensus in some areas of Wikipedia to use absurd names (as seems to be the case), then we must document that absurdity. Hesperian 02:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two ways of looking at it, right? (That's never right, but humor me for a sec.) You either convince people here to make the page say something, and then try and have that as backup when you try to change people's behavior out there, or you can try to convince people to change their behavior out there first, and then document that change here. It's not clear which one (a) happens more often, (b) makes more sense, or (c) works better. It's not even clear that those are 3 distinct questions, nor 2 distinct approaches in the first place. Just sayin'. I find changing practice first and policy pages later to be more efficient. YMMV. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Consistency has never been part of the naming conventions policy, and I can not think of one move debate where consistency has been cited as part of policy. Instead if it has been used at all it is because of what seems to be your favourite GTBacchus, IAR. -- PBS (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue that IAR is indeed one of our very most important policies, hence it being listed as pillar at WP:5P. Everytime an article is moved from a title like Brazilian geography to Geography of Brazil on account of all the other South American countries having the style "Geography of [County]" and not "[Country adjective form] geography", that's an application of the consistency principle. I don't know whether people cite it "as a policy" or simply "as a Good Idea," and I don't think that matters. What matters is that it happens, regularly, and that this page should document that. That's my take on it, anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whenever I've seen it suggested that some monarch's article be moved from a Wikipedia OR name like "Victoria/Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" to the real, unambiguous common name that policy would dictate, the cry raised in opposition to the move is always "consistency". And it always wins. So sorry, we might wish it were otherwise, but consistency is used and does trump anything else that may be written on the policy page. If we want to change anything, we should try and get community support for an explicit policy statement limiting the application of these consistency-based rules, so that they can't be abused to totally override the common name principle. But that would be an innovation, not a statement of current policy.--Kotniski (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Renaming Brazilian geography to Geography of Brazil for consistency is fine, because doing so is not inconsistent with any other WP policy, guideline or convention. In other words, that is a move that is based in consistency. My problem is with situations in which a name is justified by "consistency" which is inconsistent with broader WP naming policy, guidelines and conventions.  Big difference.  The former is rational, the latter is absurd.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the absurdity, it happens, and a lot of people feel very strongly that it should contiunue to happen. We won't change it by playing with the wording of this page; we'll change it (if at all) by getting the community involved in a major discussion and successfully making our case for a change of practice. --Kotniski (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

<--I agree with Born2cycle last statement on this issue. For example one can only justify the use of numerals and countries in the naming of monarchs because it is in a guideline and it is a method used in many reliable sources. We do not tend to use numerals on pre-conquest English kings because reliable sources do not. If we did we would end up with Edward the Confessor as Edward III of England an Edward I of England would be Edward IV of England (or some other numeral). We would be internally consistent, but it would a consistency that did not match reliable sources. There is also a case for using internal consistency if we do not have access to many reliable sources on a topic,(eg some obscure (to English sources) Russian count during the Napoleonic wars), that internal consistency may help editors find the subject without confusing the reader, and in that case make linking easier, and indirectly aids the reader in finding the article.

Who are your "lot of people feel very strongly that it should continue to happen"? I don't mind coming up with wording that when reliable sources are not clear on a name, if it helps deciding on the most easily recognize name then consistency should be considered, but we should not promote internal consistency as an alternative to using the name which is commonly used in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS's monarchs argument seems to boil down to "consistency mustn't be a principle because I can think of an example where it demonstrably does not dominate the others"—a fallacy. There are numerous examples of naming guidelines that impose consistency, which have been widely applied and vigorously defended over a long period of time. Many of them have already been mentioned on this page. It is really necessary to present yet again the evidence that Wikipedian's like consistency across article titles? Hesperian 13:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The "lot of people" are the people who - for example - vigorously oppose any attempt to move Elizabeth II's or Queen Victoria's articles to those names, for no other reason than what they perceive as "consistency" (in this case with an arbitrary rule they've got used to - it's certainly nothing to do with "reliable sources not being clear on the name"). I think it's stupid too, but they win, and we don't do anyone any service by trying to pretend that they don't win.--Kotniski (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that my answer to this thread has jumped to "I can hardly believe that these ...". --PBS (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The rewrite discussion
This discussion is too scattered and spread out. As a result many editors are finding it difficult to follow and as a result consensus may be there for some changes but only from those who are making this discussion into a full time job. Let's try and find a way to better manage this so that more of us can intelligently follow the proposals and get more participation. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We may be able to archive most of the material before ; its four subpoints are the current issues, and one of them may be resolved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's been too much discussion under multiple headings at the same time, which makes what is being discussed and where very hard to follow - particularly for newcomers. Discussion needs to be limited to 1 - 3 clear topics at once.  Xan  dar   23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At present, it's limited to three. This is the fourth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly, despite being told that discussion did take place, as a "new comer" I cannot find them. Centralising it would be helpful. Discussion here seems far too esoteric to be healthy. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were trying to read the history clearly, I would probably open both history pages, of the article and of the discussion, in tabs, and then go through them, opening edits to either page in chronological order as a whole bunch of tabs, and then using those as a full history. I think that's an absurd amount of work to have to do to figure out the sequence of events, and I would only do it if I really had to figure something out, and had an hour to brutally kill. I wonder if it's something that could be addressed with a technical patch of some kind. When article editing and talk page action are happening in parallel, what's a good way to visualize what's going on? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Convention:
Variuos paragraphs on this page seem to have Convention: written in front of them. Does this serve any purpose? To me it looks a bit silly.--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes this page is for conventions. The other pages are guidelines to the conventions. --PBS (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense to me (the other pages contain conventions as well - even more so than this page, as I understand the word "convention") - but even if it did, surely that's not a reason to write "Convention" before certain paragraphs? --Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If "convention" is to be a term of art, somehow akin to "policy", "guideline", and "essay", then it would be nice to be quite clear just what it's supposed to mean. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They seem superfluous. If their purpose was to summarise particularly lengthy sections into a nut shells then I'd say fair enough - but some of the "convention" paragraphs are longer than the rest of the sections they might summarise. This is a policy document, it does not need to be repeated that what is stated here is convention. The page would be better if the "Conventions: " bits were taken out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They do seem like kind of a remnant of a format that was once used, and heavily edited since then. Unless they can be made into something with semantic value, I say let them be gone. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, let's get rid of them. The page is still titled "Naming conventions" anyway, which implies that anything on this page is a convention, whatever that's supposed to mean.--Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought my explanation was clear. This is the conventions page. The text you have been deleting is a summary of the guideline, and is policy. Making such summaries, means that one does not have to watch the guidelines, as the text here summarises the text of the guideline and keeps the guideline within bounds of the policy (WP:Policies and guidelines). --PBS (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about now. The text I've been deleting is not a summary of anything, it's certain randomly selected information repeated from some of the guidelines. There's no reason for it to be here any more than any of the other many sections that appear in the guideline pages. Where there is a good and useful summary (like in the lists section, which says that "List of foos" is the format to use), I've left it. Please PBS, don't go back to your old habit of making blanket reverts on this page - you destroy a lot of uncontroversial improvements when you do that.--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I you do not understand what I have written then please wait until you do before making judgements about my revert. Comments like "Please PBS, don't go back to your old habit of making blanket reverts on this page - you destroy a lot of uncontroversial improvements when you do that." as it does not help keep this discussion collegiate. If the changes are uncontroversial improvements, why do you think I reverted them? Which of the sentences that I have written in this section do you not understand? If you tell me I will attempt to make them clearer. In the mean time. Please do not revert my revert on the assumption that they are uncontroversial improvements. --PBS (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what PBS says here. Everyone on this page is working in good faith, and any revert is prima facie evidence of lack of consensus, so by the BRD model, that means it's time to discuss. Reverting reverts is something we try to discourage in article space; let's lead by example in policy space, please. Also, please let's maintain a professional tone. We all get impatient and annoyed sometimes, but eventually we have to communicate with each other. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ALl right, tell me which of my changes you have some reason for reverting, and what the reason is. The explanation about summaries makes no sense to me, since most of the specific guideline pages are not summarized here, and there seems no reason to select certain random ones among them, select certain random information from them (like using o umlaut instead of o ogonek in Norse names, or the arcane project-internal stuff about stubs), and putting them on this page as "summaries". Since you haven't explained why you reverted the other changes I made, I presume you just did so since it's easier to click the undo button once. I wouldn't make a fuss about it, but you've been doing this kind of thing over and over and over again on this page, for a very long time.--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Both the general conventions and the specific conventions exist on this page. The guidelines further explain the conventions. I agree that "most of the specific guideline pages are not summarized here", but they should be. Far from removing the conventions already on this page we should be adding to them. I do not understand your hast on this matter let us discuss it first and then if there is agreement the changes can be implemented. But as yet you do not have agreement for the edits you are making. -- PBS (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PBS, can you please explain how the word "convention" fits into your picture of "policy", "guideline", etc.? How would you define "convention" in this context? I admit to being confused here, and I'm not reverting at all, just asking for help understanding. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And explain why you've just undone the one change that we have explicitly discussed and apparently agreed on - the removal of the bizarre "Convention:" at the beginning of certain paragraphs. If I weren't assuming good faith, I'd conclude this was some kind of trap to exasperate me into breaching 3RR. And is it really your position that every guideline mentioned on this page needs to have a summary paragraph also on this page? Apart from the fact that in some cases any attempt at a summary is more likely to mislead than to assist, it would make this page very cumbersomely long.--Kotniski (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure nobody's trying to goad anyone into breaking 3RR, and there's really no reason to revert anything more than once. These aren't BLP violations, and very few ships will sink if the policy has the wrong wording for an hour, a day, or a week. Let's see if we can figure out exactly what PBS finds valuable about those "Convention:" bits. I don't understand just what the weight of them is supposed to be, and I don't think the page itself makes that clear to readers. I don't know anywhere else on Wikipedia where we're presented with a list of things explicitly tagged as "convention"s, so it's not clear where that fits in everyone's model of Wikipedia policy structure. Let's wait for an answer from PBS. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if we got an explanation before (or at least together with) the revert. But I'm waiting patiently... --Kotniski (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we start listing things that would be nice... There's no urgency. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Quiche
GTBacchus, in the good old days when men were men and quiche eaters had yet to find Wikipedia, there were no real differences between policy and guidelines. But in recent years there has been a clear distinction between policy and guidelines, because unless one wishes to spend one's time on nothing else the half dozen or so main policies is more than enough to cover.

This is a policy page called "Naming conventions". Unfortunately there are also dozens of guidelines to this policy page. Most of these seem to have come into existence as workarounds to the problems of common names before common names were defined as only being those found in reliable sources (Eg "Bloody Mary"). Given that this policy probably has more guidelines than any other policy, it is essential that a clear distinction is made between policy and the guidelines. I think that many of these guidelines are now redundant thanks to the addition of reliable sources to this policy, but they retain their usefulness as a guideline for a specific area. By this I mean if one considering creating a new article on an aeroplane, then Naming conventions (aircraft) provides a useful brief description of how to name an aircraft with examples relating to that specific field. BUT with so many guidelines, it is helpful if the policy set the bounds to what the guidelines say and a nutshell type sentence or two for each guideline, helps in this process. It also helps if one comes to the policy and needs to see if a particular guideline only describes an area or if it contains supplemental rules for a specific area as does Naming conventions (names and titles). That is a case were there should be more detail in the form of a convention not less. --PBS (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PBS, many of us are still resisting the quiche-eaters. I invite you back to the good fight. I thank you for your explanation of what you mean by convention; I'll have to chew it more carefully later. IAR is not dead, and I invite you to awake unto it. Every single edit anyone makes to any page on this wiki had better be taking IAR into consideration, and rules-lawyering is to be resisted tooth and nail, not capitulated to. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How can the policy set the bounds for what the guidelines say? They will say what they say, surely; all we can do here is summarize them. In fact, as we've already seen, the guidelines tend in practice to take precedence over this page, which rather implies to me that this page shouldn't be marked as policy. I see a parallel with the MoS: there's a central MoS page and many more detailed MoS pages (which the central one sometimes attempts to summarize), but none of them are marked as policy. (Can you also give an answer to why you insist on reinserting the word "Convention:" in certain places?)--Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How can the policy set the bounds for what the guidelines say? In two steps, either in itself sufficient:
 * Per WP:POL: Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence. That's a short-term solution: follow policies rather than guidelines.
 * Once a conflict has been noticed, hold a discussion, and harmonize the policy and the guideline. Either or both may need to be changed; it may be that the policy left something out that the editors of the guideline have caught. On the other hand, it may be a purely verbal conflict, to be ironed out by clarifications. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes, this is all fine theoretically. But with these naming conventions, the "policy" has never taken precedence (cf. monarchs, ships, flora etc.) So we conclude, surely, that this page is not policy in any meaningful sense, and we should remove the policy tag as it simply misleads. Everyone agreed? (And I still don't know why PBS insists on having certain paragraphs prefixed with the word "Convention:".)--Kotniski (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No I do not agree with removing policy from this page. See my comments on why this has to be a policy page in the archives.


 * This has been a policy page for many years. And yes this page has taken precedence for may years over guidelines. However because the wording was unclear (and I thought the whole process we have been embarked upon for the last month was to clarify it) the policy as it was a month ago could be read in several ways, and there was not a firm consensus on that. As I said above: before reliable sources were added to the policy last year, most of the guidelines were designed to give guidance in different areas to support the use of reliable sources. For example monarchs, ships basically say use the name in reliable sources, but it does this in a long winded way because when it was written that concept had not been developed. Using the name that is used in reliable English language sources came out of discussions on WP:UE and the MOS about "Foreign terms" because it cuts out most of the arguments about whether to use Funny Foreign Squiggles or not, which until the adoption of using reliable sources in English, was a matter of opinion over which was "correct usage". It also lead to problems of differences between the names of articles (the result of a beauty contest at WP:RM) and the usage within the article which should have been based on reliable sources. However once selection of names was based on reliable sources in English, many of the other areas where naming had been a problem, also became much simpler. For example the naming of monarchs has become simplified with only a few, such as Queen Victoria, tha are seriously open to debate, before this change many more were frequently questioned. The major difference between WP:NC (names and titles) is not between this policy page but between the guidance in WP:NC (names and titles) and WP:Disambiguation naming, which is something I think is quite acceptable. -- PBS (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can hardly believe that these subject-specific conventions had anything to do with following reliable sources - the monarchs one, for example, has us use names that are almost never found in any sources, reliable or otherwise. And you see what happens - when there's a conflict between what this page says and what one of these specific conventions says, people follow the specific convention, even unto absurdity. So the idea that this page takes precedence seems to me just a fiction that a few people are comforted by believing in. --Kotniski (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "I can hardly believe that these subject-specific conventions had anything to do with following reliable sources " Then explain why "Edward I of England" is named "Edward I" and not "Edward IV" and why the badly constructed flora says use scientific names if those names are not based on reliable sources? When I look at a WP:RM a debate I look at the policy and then at the guidelines. If the suggested name is clearly the common name, then I choose the common name. When there is no clear common name then I look at the guidelines to decide what may be the most suitable name, I never look at a guideline and assume that it overrides the policy. Indeed I have spent a lot of time trying to persuade people to base their guidelines on the policy page so that they are compatible with it. If one throws out reliable sources as the guide to naming pages, not only does it go against this policy it also goes against the content policies unless the title is not part of the text of the article. -- PBS (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find this a persuasive argument. Applying consistency in a manner that reflects usage in reliable sources is one thing; imposing an artificial consistency is another. I am convinced that "consistency" ought not be one of our naming principles. However I am not convinced that "consistency" is not one of our naming principles. There is compelling evidence that people like consistency in names, bad idea or not. Hesperian 13:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's been my point all along. I fully agree that things should be as PBS describes, but simply they are not. The point about the monarchs is not about the numbering (which is the same regardless of whether we use common names or reliably sourced names), it's about the addition of realms. Here we absolutely do throw out reliable sources, commonness of name and any other factors this policy might lay down, and decide instead to go with the rule because it's "consistent". --Kotniski (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But we do not. All we do is add additional information in a way that conflicts with how WP:Disambiguation suggests doing it. Indeed there have been discussions on the talk page of monarch to go over to "name numberal (state)" which would be closer to the way that WP:Disambiguation suggests doing it. In many reliable sources there is no need to mention the state in the name because it is usually clear in the context which monarch is being referred to, for example if I see a sentence in a book on the "Civil War" [sic] that Charles I was executed on 30 January 1649, I would not expect them to identify him further, because the context makes it obvious. But when looking for an article on Charles I without context then some form of further disambiguation is needed. This is true for all general encyclopaedias, eg Charles I Victoria www.britannica.com). --PBS (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The realms are added regardless of whether any disambiguation is needed. It's all about "consistency" (and this isn't the only such rule followed for the same reason). So to say that consistency doesn't play a part in name selection is just wrong. And I think we would agree that it certainly should play such a part, up to a point (we would differ on what point). In fact I think we could boil the whole naming thing down to two factors: commonness (in the right kind of sources) and consistency. (Plus the unavoidable need for uniqueness.) --Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What does "convention" mean?
And back to the original (though apparently quite minor) question, PBS - can you explain in loud and ringing tones what you think "convention" means? Because we just don't get it. Your latest edit summary says "this page contains the conventions", implying you don't think the other "Naming conventions (xxx)" pages contain conventions? But anyone can see that they do, surely, unless you think conventions has some unusual meaning here? And againm, what is the significance of those paragraphs marked "Convention:" on this page? I'm sure this is no big deal, but having these misunderstandings unresolved is starting to obstruct the process of editing these pages.--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the guidelines contain conventions, they contain guidance to this page which is the naming conventions policy, so it is this page that contains the naming conventions. As I have said in the aptly named section "What are conventions, I proposed renaming this page before and I would support renaming if someone else would put it up for renaming, but I will not initiate another WP:RM as some people like &mdash; consider that if I am too active on this page that I am guilty of ownership, so I am trying to keep my edits to those I think affect the meaning of the page, and not what I think is a matter of style. -- PBS (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that because this page is titled "Naming conventions", that implies that it and it alone contains naming conventions? This is some species of logical fallacy I'm sure. (If we renamed it "The meaning of life", would that mean it suddenly contained the meaning of life?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In Australia, both rugby league and rugby union are popular sports. For reasons that I don't really understand, the word "rugby", when used on its own, always means rugby union. Supporters of both codes agree on that. If you use "rugby" to refer to rugby league, you're a goose. PBS seems to have done much the same with "naming convention policy" and "naming convention guidelines": he seems to have unilaterally decided that the unqualified phrase "naming convention" means "naming convention policy", never "naming convention guidelines", and that this distinction must be preserved by rooting out and destroying and and all non-conforming uses of the phrase. This is the impression I get; I am not certain of it, because, despite asking PBS about this several times, I have not yet received an answer that I understood. Hesperian 13:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! A schism that has lasted since 1895 in England is dismissed in one sentence! In the north of England an unqualified use of rugby in a sporting context in an industrial town would mean league. At a public school in the south it would mean union, and I think there is a similar geographic split in Australia, but see football (word) for more on this.


 * Yes until this article is renamed, this is the "naming conventions policy page" and it contains the conventions. The guidelines are guidelines to the naming conventions policy page. Until such time as this page is renamed, the easiest way to harmonise the wording of this policy page with WP:policies and guidelines is to restrict the use of the term "naming conventions" to mean the "naming conventions policy page". Extending the use of naming conventions to include the wording in guidelines, (unless it is a copy of the wording from this policy page) is in my opinion not appropriate as it leads to confusion over the demarcation between policy and guidelines. If one assumes that this page contains the conventions, then talk of extensions to a specific part of the policy can only exist within this page, which removes the whole problem of extensions that Xandar propots exists when (s)he says this policy cedes extensions to guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So it seems you really do think that something becomes what it's called. Well OK, let's accept that premise - we then note that all the guideline pages are called "Naming conventions (...)" as well. So how is it not confusing to decide unilaterally that "naming conventions" can only refer to things on this page? (And since you still haven't answered the question about why some paragraphs are preceded by the word Convention:, despite being asked half a dozen times, I'm assuming you no longer have any objection to its being removed - if you must revert again, please say what your reasoning is.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh this really is the limit - instead of answering the question, PBS has simply put the offending words back, despite everyone else's being against them. This isn't being bold, it's sticking the requisite number of fingers up at consensus and discussion, and just saying "this is my page, keep off". That is, unless you really do have a good reason for doing this that you're just about to tell us... --Kotniski (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kotniski I thought we had an agreement that the phrase would not be changed until after there was agreement for change. I have been answering questions, so why did you remove them before an agreement to remove them was reached? In the last 12 months you have made far more edits to this page than I have. . -- PBS (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kotniski, remember: None of this matters. No damage is done by the strange words being in place. PBS is not trying to be disruptive, and although I agree that he hasn't been 100% clear, I have no question about his honorable motives. (GTB)
 * If it doesn't matter, why are we editing this page at all? I hold that it does matter how our policy pages are presented - not because they are some kind of legislation that makes people obey them (though there is an element of that about them), but because they're part of how we communicate with the people who would cooperate with us on this project. If we allow them to be a confused and inaccurate mess, in deference to one or two editors who want to use them for private purposes, then we harm the project in ways I think we can all imagine.--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it matters a little bit, and it matters in the long run. Whether the page is unstable for a week or a month doesn't matter much. Ripples aren't felt in the article space for a while, because names don't change that fast. My point is that it's not worth getting upset over. Errors will be fixed. Consensus will be reflected. The page will be stable again. Just keep a sense of perspective, that's all. I was reponding to your "Oh this really is the limit". No it's not. Have a cup of tea, or maybe a beer. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, I am confused. Above, I asked you what is your definition of "convention". You didn't say, but you said a lot of stuff, which I read, and parsed, and I think - correct me if I'm wrong - I think you're saying this: This page is a policy, other pages are guidelines. We're going to define "convention", for our purposes here, as at item in the WP:NC policy, as opposed to a naming guideline. Is that your position? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading the above more carefully, I think that is it. PBS: I contend that your belief in the difference between policy and guideline, and your desire to make it clearer in policy are destructive to the project, contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and I request that you stop. IAR is policy, and your opinion that it is somehow a relic is a disappointing indicator that you don't know what's going on. Stop hurting wikipedia with this bureaucratic mindset. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and you are duty-bound as an administrator to stop helping the enemy: the Rule-Lawyers. All of that aside, simply labeling the things with "Convention:" DOES NOT COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY. If none of us could figure out what the hell you were talking about, why will readers? If you're going to implement a term of art that is not already well-understood, then explain yourself, man! -GTBacchus(talk) 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between policy and guidelines that is not just my opinion, there is a wide consensus that there is and it is reflected in WP:Policies and guidelines and the preamble to the three content policies. This difference was bought to the for during the WP:APP saga, and the relationship between WP:V and WP:RS. Yes ignore all the rules is policy, but it is only invoked if for some reason if there is a consensus that other polices would produced a silly result. I do not see the distinction that you are making between administrators and editors, and I think that over the last five years there has been a tendency for some administrators to take to themselves arbitrary powers which go against natural justice. For example the three revert rule used to be enforced as a simple algorithm, more recently it has been subsumed into Edit warring which leaves administrators with a lot of discretion and hence more difficult for inexperienced editors not to cross unclear lines. But this is not the place to debate general fixes to Wikipedia, it is the place to make clear what is and is not naming policy. The reason why this is desirable is so that there is one agreed naming conventions policy page which is the kernel for all the naming conventions guidelines. Until this page is renamed the clearest way to do this is to keep the conventions on this page and the guidance for the conventions in the guidelines. To make this explicit I think it is better if the word Convention: is kept on this page. It is not as if this is a new proposal, the word convention had been on this page for some time, it is the removal of the word convention which is novel. -- PBS (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely saying that prefacing each point with the word "Convention:" without explaining the weight of that label is very poor communication. Unless you're willing to clarify what it means, for readers, don't do it. It's unclear, poor writing. Your limited interpretation of IAR is disappointingly myopic. You're simply wrong about that policy. It is for more than just the occasional "oops the rules are saying something silly; skip it". It's fundamental to every single edit. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand you point of view GTBacchus about IAR, are you really saying that one should ignore policies such as consensus, because if an editor does, even if they cite WP:IAR they will be blocked? -- PBS (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure quite why these overall questions about IAR are being discussed here, but carry on if you must... On the thing about conventions/policies/guidelines, PBS seems to be making distinctions which no-one else is ever going to get. If you want to use "conventions" as a synonym for "policies" (which it is not in the real world), you must explain loudly and clearly that that it what you're doing (indeed that would be a new convention in itself). But I don't see any need to do so - let "convention" mean what it means to everyone, and let the policy tag at the top of this page suffice by way of a statement that this is the page that lords it over the others (it's a false statement IMO, but that's a different argument).--Kotniski (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Stability
Can someone explain this reversion? It was from
 * ''If the article name has never been stable, settle for the name used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub; such a situation may indicate a more serious problem than a naming dispute. Whether stability has existed, and when, is a question of fact, to be settled by common sense and consensus.

to
 *  If it is unclear whether an article's name has been stable for a long time, defer to the name used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

What is particularly puzzling is the edit summary: whether actual change of policy occured is not a question of fact. How is determining whether some article has been stable under a given title a change of policy? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that your edit constituted a change of policy that has not yet occurred, and the reverter used syntax that closely resembles one of the phrases used in your edit. I'm not sure I've parsed the logic correctly, nor can I read the reverter's mind, but that's my impression. I hope I'm corrected if that's wrong. There seem to be divergent ideas in the air about how quickly and dynamically we should be editing policy pages. Again, that's just an impression. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"...Whether stability has existed, and when, is a question of fact..." (among others) seems a thoroughly undesirable insertion to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Isn't it a question of fact whether a given article was stable between February and July 2009? What sort of question is it, then? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsensical: whether something is stable for a certain amount of time may be factual, extrapolating something like that to "stable" (in general) is not factual. We don't need such gibberish. And it is all fairly unrelated to the core of the guidance you were messing with. So whether or not something can be perceived "factually stable" is unrelated to the determination the guidance tries to make in this instance.

In sum, please quit wasting our time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence was evidently unclear, which is a defect. It did not say anything about "stability in general"; it discussed whether there had ever been stability for a long period of time.


 * I'll comment further if a clearer wording occurs to me; in the meantime, this was the result of above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording you proposed was clear AND nonsensical. Please quit wasting our time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Francis' reading is indeed nonsensical; it's also not what the sentence said. Therefore it was unclear, and any clearer wording of the same content would be welcome. Please read more carefully; more attention to what is actually written, and fewer efforts at invective, would make Wikipedia more pleasant for all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording you proposed was clear AND nonsensical. "Whether stability has existed" is about stability in general (so, don't pretend otherwise). Stability in general AND stability for slices of time are BOTH unrelated to the part of the guidance you were messing with. So, discussion of stability (whether in general or for limited periods of time) is useless for the part of the guidance you tampered with. Please quit wasting our time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I pretend nothing. I am baffled why "If the article has never been stable...If the article has been stable for a long time" should be seen as anything but an alternative. In that context, "stability has ever existed..." is clearly, to anyone with a command of English idiom, "stability for a long time"; but it could certainly have been spelled out more clumsily and explicitly for those whose command of the language is shaky.


 * This text is avowedly, in both versions, an adaption of WP:MOS. The assertion that stability is unrelated to it is doubtless as much news to MOS as it is to me.


 * If Francis has nothing better to do than to cut and paste "Please quit wasting our time", he is wasting his own time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Took out a non-constructive talk page header.
 * "...a question of fact" was introduced by you: such absurd contentions are not needed for the guidance to work. The old wording started from the contention of the inverse (...which works) "If it is unclear whether an article's name has been stable...". --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your rejection of MOS-like endeavours is no secret, that's why most of your edits to MOS (and by extension NCs) are attempts at reductio in absurdum, aka WP:POINT edits. I'm asking you to cease and desist.--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there are times when MOS gets things right; its procedural advice, unlike its advice on emdashes and kibibytes, is usually sound. (ENGVAR is another example, which I have always supported.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you happen to like WP:ENGVAR is immaterial to the discussion at hand... please quit wasting our the time of other Wikipedians in such fashion... --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Francis, for the last month of so, discussion on this page has proceeded in an unusually constructive manner. There have been, I grant, a few unconstructive comments; but generally these have been kept to a bare minimum, through self-restraint and good management. If you would make an effort to conform your own contributions to this, it would be appreciated. Hesperian 04:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, sorry to disagree with your analysis "...discussion on this page has proceeded in an unusually constructive manner". So, better to look at yourself than pointing at others isn't it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At the very least, please stop using "our" as though we all endorse your attacks on PMAnderson. I for one do not believe that PMAnderson has been wasting my time on this page. Hesperian 05:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do apologise for the pluralis maiestatis, it was inappropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As Mark Twain said, it's equally appropriate to editors; his third possibility we need not discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not related to the question at hand. Please quit wasting other people's time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it clearly is. Please stop wasting your own time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If even "Jimbo said" usually is an irrelevant argument, what has Mark Twain to make his vaguely related quotes relevant to the discussion at hand? IMHO nothing. Aka, waste of time for those who read it. I stand with my objection: the discussion has moved away from a discussion on the improvement of guideline text. I think the reason is that the discussion has no real object. The body of the discussion content is meagre to the point of non-existence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue here, I agree with Francis that the question "whether stability has existed, and when", is problematic. It is a bit like asking for what values of a discontinuous function is that function continuous. The answer can only be "everywhere except at the discontinuities". One might just as well argue that an article title is stable at all times except when it is being moved. Any attempt to come up with a more sensible definition of "stable" yields a question of interpretation, not "fact". Hesperian 05:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there may be a way to be pretty unambiguous about it. If so, I don't think we'll discover it by asking each other repeatedly to quit wasting time. Obviously nobody considers their own contributions to be a waste of time. Someone who supports the "last stable version" wording, please explain to me a way of detemining "stable version" that will work in 80% of cases. I'm willing to leave 20% to consensus to figure out. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Which "stable version" wording: PMA's? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any of them. I'd just like to hear people talk about how they think we can interpret "last stable version" in a fairly objective manner. I suspect the question is answerable to at least an 80% useful degree, and I'd like to see that spelled out, so we can consider it fairly. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the two versions give the same guidance for titles that have recently been stable, and the same guidance for titles that have recently been unstable. The difference is that the old version allowed for a third case, where it is not clear whether or not the title has recently been stable. PMA's new version denies the validity of this third case. I agree with (the thrust of) PMA's version. If we're going to have a third case for "unclear", then we might as well also have a fourth case for "unclear whether clear or unclear." And a fifth case for "unclear whether clear or unclear whether clear or unclear". I'm not being trite here. Most arguments over content devolve into meta-arguments over whether or not an consensus has been achieved. The "If it is unclear" guidance merely replaces discussion about whether the title has recently been stable, with discussion about whether it is unclear whether the title has recently been stable. Better to bite the bullet and advise discussion in the first place. Hesperian 06:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether we provide for the third case is one discussion (I think we should);


 * Whether the policy should contain some sort of categorical language decreeing that such state of lack of clarity "can not exist" is another. IMHO such verbiage would result in all versions to gibberish we should not have in the policy or related guidelines under any circumstance, it is denying what (alas) often happens. Guidance at least should not deny reality. At most it can ignore a part of reality and not provide for this (often occurring) third scenario (e.g., in a WP:BEANS approach), but as said, even that I don't think a useful option: it is withholding guidance where it would be appreciated most: for those instances where interminable discussions should reach some sort of a conclusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confident that PMA will agree that guidance should not deny reality; and he has already acknowledged that his wording was unclear. Let us grant, for now, that it could have been worded better, and will be, if it is to be worded at all. All that remains is the question whether we should provide for the third case. Why do you think we should? Hesperian 06:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See above - I was caught in an ec when clarifying that part of my previous post. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re. "[PMA] has already acknowledged that his wording was unclear" - as said, his wording was CLEAR ENOUGH and NONSENSICAL. I see his "unclear" admission as a non-apologising excuse (aka insincere), avoiding the real point of the intellectual dishonesty contained in the proposed verbiage (which he applied directly to the policy page, no less). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, another editor who believes that repeating things IN FULL CAPS makes them true. What's next, boldface? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find what "see above" was referring to. I still don't know why you think we should provide for the third case. Hesperian 07:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should not; the discussion should make up its collective mind whether there has been a period of stability or there has not been one. (Since the whole paragaph applies only to situations where there is no consensus on a title in the first place, it would be preferable for the discussion to make up its mind on the substantive issue; but this page should be realistic, as Hesperian said.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The old text fails to provide for the second case, in which it is clear whether the name has been stable for a long time, and it clearly has not been stable for a long time. It is preferable to decide what the title should be by consensus; but it is in this rare case (has it ever happened?) that we default (because there is nothing else) to the first contributor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing-while-discussing on policy pages
I'm struck by a comment made by GTBacchus (sorry if it sounds like I singling you out, GTBacchus): "There seem to be divergent ideas in the air about how quickly and dynamically we should be editing policy pages."

Meanwhile the page itself has the following to say:

Please compare the degree of change between this policy page and the other content-related policy pages over the past calendar month:


 * Neutral point of view - 41 edits
 * Verifiability - 20 edits
 * No original research - 27 edits
 * Biographies of living persons - 37 edits
 * Naming conventions - 356 edits

There is far too much editing-while-discussing going on. This is a policy page. The content of the page needs to reflect consensus. At present it does not appear to reflect consensus among the handful of editors contributing to this talk page - never mind the community as a whole.

Please let the editing-while-discussing stop now. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of that is chaff and unproductive reversion, but there is another factor. Without even searching for periods, like the introduction of WP:APP, when I know that policy was widely discussed and revised, editing of policy pages does come in bursts, largely when new ideas are introduced. For example, over the previous month, NPOV had 71 edits and over last September, it had 92; both twice as many as your present sample. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your numbers are off. July 22 - August 22, NPOV had 57 edits (a similar number to this page over the same period). August 22 - September 22, it had 41 edits, the net effect of which was to add two half paragraphs and to remove one subsection. Over the same period, this page had 356 edits and changed substantially.
 * Eight editors were responsible for nearly 80% of those edits. You have accounted for 20% of all edits over the past month. As your rightly point out, that is the stuff of "chaff and unproductive reversion". Please stop it.
 * It seems tragic that policy needs to the quoted on the talk page of that same policy, but "new naming conventions and guidelines should be advertised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, at Requests for comment, the Village Pump, and any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, the proposal can be adopted and listed on this page." That will cut out the "chaff and unproductive reversion". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, a good many of those edits are text, still here, which has substantially clarified the policy; one of my edits today was in response to your own comments, and I hope it pleases you - and if not, that you will rework it. Working on a policy, as on an article, is not chaff. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly with coṁrá. The problem is that this over-editing confuses everyone as to what actually IS consensus, what is long-standing policy - and what is NOT. That is why major changes should be discussed on the talkpage and only added in to the policy page when clear community consensus exists. This method of constant change has already confused people wanting to contribute to the RFC, and makes it almost impossible to ensure which changes are contested, which have consensus, and which are mere drafting changes. We don't have consensus for many of the significant changes made, and some editors are acting as though we do. Policy is clear, consensus for significant policy change  has to be community consensus gained over as wide an audience as possible.  Xan  dar   22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One man's "clarification" is another man's "modification". There has been *a lot* of "clarification" over the past month. Work it out on the talk page. When everyone's happy, change the policy page. Don't work it out on the policy page itself. People come here to know what policy is. Not what policy might be. That's all I'm saying. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The man who thinks that any "modification" of policy is possible via editing of policy pages is wrong, and is supporting a dangerous and damaging superstition. Look at our five basic pillars. One of them is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Anyone who thinks that isn't true should edit WP:5P to make it clear that we've decided to host a rules-game. Then we'll see whether consensus supports that view. Until then, there is no physically possible way to "modify" policy by editing a page. Please do not reinforce the damaging superstition that such an act of dark word-magic is possible. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the metaphysical qualities of policy - whether it is really is mutable or not - let's advertise the changes we want frst, then try putting them into the page once we have agreement to do so? We don't want to give the impression that something has broad consensus when it has not. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that we need to mess around with "advertising" changes we want, because our "wanting" has nothing to do with anything. We don't determine consensus by asking people if they agree with changes; that's an indirect and faulty way to do it. There's a sampling bias towards people who like to discuss policy for one thing. Those people (like myself) don't set policy. We try to observe the policy as set by workers out there in the field, and we try to record it. I agree that we don't want to give an impression of broad consensus where none exists. I only want to accurately describe the broad consensus I've observed by working in RM. There are too few of us here to make a dent in that, and you'll never get those thousands of people all to a discussion here - thank God. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That stuff about Village Pump, and Policy Proposals... that's all bad advice. It shouldn't be presented as good advice. First of all, it's not very effective (that's an Important Point, and if you would change policy, you want to be effective), and secondly, it goes against our fundamental pillar of IAR. The best way to understand policy pages are that they are records of previous agreements. They're descriptions of de facto policies which are determined in the field by consensus. A legalistic or rule-like understanding of Wikipedia policies is cancer. The view I am articulating here, while popularly misunderstood, is not some relic of by-gone days, and it's not some kind of abstract noise with no application. It's the correct mind-frame to have with every edit you make to the wiki, and that view is supported by a broad and long-standing consensus. IAR is our first policy, and it is not a joke on any level. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a good thing if outsiders have seen a proposed guideline and have not expressed horror; this process can at least check that. Unfortunately, that's about the most it can achieve; WP:MOSMAC went through this, was looked over by a competent editor, who did make useful suggestions. It still was a failure, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "The best way to understand policy pages are that they are records of previous agreements." Aye. So let's reach those agreement first. And then record them. Right now it seems as if we are putting the cart before the horse. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But the agreements in this case are not going to be reached here, by us - they've been reached by the community in countless discussions about what names to give to articles. The recent editing of this page that so horrifies you is (a) minor presentational matters that don't change policy in the least; (b) quite major changes of wording that bring the page into line with actual practice. Trying to stifle these changes is like trying to stifle corrections of facts in a WP article - it doesn't achieve anything except to make the page less accurate and thus less valuable to our project. If you object to something on the page, then say what, and show how it fails to properly describe accepted practices. --Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding (a) - fixing typos, grammar and presentaion etc. is fine. No need to discuss, just do. With all our thanks.
 * Regarding (b) - if practice has changed then open a thread, advertise it widely, get agreement, make the change. Simple.
 * As you acknowledge, it has been (b) has been the bulk of changes to this page over the last fortnight or so. Discussion appears to have only taken place on this page *after* the changes were made to the document. (I'm told that this is not so, but I cannot find any earlier threads and certainly discussion is still on going.) It has not been advertised widely - apart from the RFC which seem to have come down against the changes that were made. And there does not seem to be agreement even among the limited number of contributors to this page with regards to the recent (b)-style changes. That does not inspire confidience that the handful of editors making these changes are acting on behalf of the consensus reached by "the community in countless discussions about what names to give to articles" (which is very different to saying that they do not believe that they are).
 * "... the agreements in this case are not going to be reached here, by us ..." "If you object to something on the page, then say what, and show how it fails to properly describe accepted practices." Can you not see a contradiction between these two statements? These are not matters to be decided here by a handful of editors by way of a low-scale edit war. Put it back to how it was. Reach an agreement on what you want it to say. Get community sign-off. Then make the changes. Because right now, the page is being worked on as if it were a draft. Whereas in fact 200-odd people a day are coming here expecting to receive actual gudiance on what is actual consensus among the actual community. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? That just makes it all the more urgent that we get it saying what that actual consensus is - which is what we've been doing. "Putting it back to how it was" (when what it was was not at all representative of that actual consensus) is just harmful. You seem to think we've been deciding how things should be - not so, we've been deciding how best to describe how things are.--Kotniski (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who decided it was "not at all representative of [...] actual consensus"? (The RFC would seem to suggest otherwise BTW.) And who is now deciding "how things are"? In the mean time the page is neither reflective of the (old?) consensus or the (new?) consensus(?).
 * There is an established process. It takes no longer than the method you propose. It ensures that the changes you would like to make actually have consensus. It ensures that editors coming to this page receive coherent and trustworthy advice about what is policy.
 * But I can see I'm getting nowhere here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you're making a false assumption: that the page as it was "before" represented consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an "established process". It's called IAR, and it is a fundamental pillar of how this site works. It's not a joke on any level. The ideas that policies are changed via some kind of town-hall process of proposal-discussion-acceptance is a fiction, little borne out by experience. IAR is fundamental and non-negotiable. Consensus is created in the field, by thousands of editors. Those who have observed that consensus attempt to record it here. There is no need to get those thousands of people to "sign off" on what they've done, because they signed by doing. The process is this: does this page reflect actual consensual practice? If so super; if not, how not? What is actual consensual practice, and how can we better describe it. That's all we ever need to talk about on this page. It's much more concrete and useful than talking about "Editing-while-discussing on policy pages", which is at least 2 steps further removed from the actual project than what we ought to be talking about. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking the last 500 edits: February 25, March 16, April 17, May 21, June 11, July 18, August 69, September 326. I count the ten most active editors of this page as Kotniski 99, Pmanderson 73, Philip Baird Shearer 37, Xandar 22, Born2cycle 19, Hesperian 15, GTBacchus 15, Tony1 7, ArthurRubin 7, RTG 5. Kotniski as there had been so few edits up August I do not see how you can argue that there was not consensus before August and as the most prolific editor in September perhaps you are not a disinterested party and hence not the best to judge whether there was or was not a consensus before M's edits in August. I would have thought rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid who has not been an active editor of the page, is in a better position to judge this as (s)he has not invested a lot of time editing it. --PBS (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what logic you're applying there. One's ability to judge how well it reflects consensus depends on one's experience with page-naming discussions and one's ability to draw objective conclusions from that experience. My edits have been mainly presentational - the ones that rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid is presumably objecting to have been made by others, especially GTBacchus, who appears to have a lot of experience, good analytical abilities, and no agenda to push.--Kotniski (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "...is presumably objecting to..." The title of this section is Editing-while-discussing on policy pages. Please don't presume that I object to any of the edits made. (I've listed some above, which of course you don't need to presume anything about my opinion of at all.) It is the manner by which the policy stated on this page is being altered that I am raising as a concern - not necessarily what it is being altered to state. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If nobody objects to what it is being altered to state, then the new text is consensus, and the edits reflect consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * People have been objecting since the start of the month.
 * A choice quotation from two archives back is the following from PBS: "This policy page is starting to get very unstable. ... I strongly suggest that we go back to the version as it has been for ma[n]y months, and move the latest into Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Draft..." That was 7 September. I am struck that Kotniski's response then was, "...if people object to any change, they can say what and why." Same as it is now.
 * It's obvious that I might as well be talking to the wall here. I'm going to invite outside opinion. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's like talking to the wall. Kotniski is saying, let's talk about the edits, and not about whether the edits were made according to the correct editing model. How is the latter helpful, when we could do the former instead? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (left) if people object to any change, they can say what and why. And that is still true. Often people have objected substantively, and there has been more editing to satisfy the objection; any substantive objection held by a substantial number of editors, and which can be addressed by tweaking wording, ought to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been substantial objections on the new "principles" and the removal of the sentence on the exceptions in the guidelines, yet these have been ignored by the editors wanting the changes, and edit-warred into place. That's not the way to do things.  Xan  dar   22:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Names vs. descriptions
We've touched on this topic above, but I would like to revisit it. All topics covered in Wikipedia either have names, or they don't. I think the article naming conventions are substantially different for articles about topics with clear and obvious names than are the conventions for articles about topics that don't have names, and so the titles are really short descriptions. For example, Geography of Brazil is not a name of that topic, but a description of that topic, while Paris is the name of the topic of that article. I think it would helpful for the policy to recognize this distinction, because the principles and rules that apply are really quite different. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite true, and we do recognize it. Article titles should name or describe the subject of the article. Of the five principles here, I would say all apply to both, so what differences do you see? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One difference is that descriptive titles must be neutral. To generalise: the titles that we ourselves construct must be constructed in accordance with our content policies. Hesperian 01:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

When a topic has an obvious name, especially if that name is unambiguous or that topic has primary use of that name, then that name is used for the title irrespective of whether the name is Recognizable, Easy to find, Precise, Concise and Consistent. Hitting WP:RANDOM for some examples of titles that simply reflect the name of the respective topic: Party America, University for Peace, Bubba Miller, Kråkstad, Colossus Records, Epratuzumab, Saccharina, The Radio Pirates. Playing with WP:RANDOM quickly reveals that the vast majority of WP articles are named like this. To contrast, every few articles has a topic that has no name and so the title is not a name, but descriptive, such as 2001 Asian Men's Volleyball Championship and The assault on Copenhagen. It is only for the latter relatively rare type of title to which all these principles apply. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the name is obvious, it is recognizable and easy to find, by hypothesis - those are what make it obvious; it is almost always precise and concise; it is usually consistent. Therefore these principles not only apply, they support the use of obvious names. Most articles will have a simple and obvious name that satisfies all of these, as this page already says; that applies equally to descriptive names.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, articles with relatively obscure topics - which most articles are to most people - do not have titles that are recognizable or easy to find. Start clicking on WP:RANDOM and tell me what percentage of the first 20 articles titles are recognizable to you.  The reason the name is used as the title is not because it is recognizable and easy to find, but because it is the name of the topic.  That is, the primary principle for naming most articles in WP is to use the name of the topic, period.  Only when that fails (because there is no name, or dabbing is required, etc.) do other principles become relevant, including those that inherently also happen apply to obvious names.  One way or another I think this fundamental point needs to be reflected in the policy, because all too often the lack of appreciation for this fundamental convention is problematic in naming disputes, and the current wording could be easily used to justify using a description rather than the obvious name for any article for which the topic is not very well known (which is the vast majority of articles in WP).  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Most subjects, even Paris, don't have one the name; they have several. (One is often clearly the most common name, and therefore obvious; but articles like that don't come to this page anyway.) We often don't use the most proper name: for example, we don't use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it's a redirect to a far more common name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense? You're making my point.  By "obvious" name, that includes the name that is obviously most commonly used for the topic in question, such as Paris and United Kingdom.  But the current wording doesn't say that such obvious common names have preference.   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine; it does now. That seems to me to be stating the obvious, but if b2c can miss the implication, so can some clueless newbie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's better, but I think you're still missing my point. The vast majority of article with titles that use names in WP are not "recognizable" to most people.  Only titles that use descriptions are subject to using terms that are recognizable.  I don't know about you, but Epratuzumab (a name) is not recognizable to me, but 2001 Asian Men's Volleyball Championship (a description) is, yet both are valid and appropriate titles.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So? Epratuzumab is as recognizable as the name is going to be, unless there's some common synonym the article failed to mention - also as concise, and so on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Epratuzumab is as recognizable as the topic name is going to be, but certainly the article name (a.k.a. title) could be made more recognizable, such as  or, which it arguably should be, if "recognizable" is really a principle that applied to naming articles even for articles with obvious topic names. So, again, my point is that "recognizable" and all of the other principles listed do not apply to naming the vast majority of WP articles which have a single obvious unambiguous or primary most common topic name; in those cases we simply use that topic name to be the article name (title).  Since this is how most articles are named, that should be stated clearly upfront, not as a "by the way" after all the principles that only apply to naming a minority of articles are listed. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anybody else agree with this, or is this another solitary tirade? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Assault on Copenhagen is an imprecise title. It describes, I see, the events of 1659; but Copenhagen has been assaulted many times: 1368, 1801, 1807, 1813... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, that's still an example of title that is a description, not a name. Whether it needs to be more precise is a separate issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

the WP:RM bias
One more point about this. It should be noted that one's impression about what naming policy is is going to be quite different if that opinion is formed by looking at discussions about article titles going through WP:RM, rather than, say, looking at article names as they are created, or looking at them via WP:RANDOM. This is because the subset of names that go through WP:RM are by definition controversial or likely to be controversial. If this policy only reflects in writing the principles that tend to be used to resolve those disputes, it's almost certainly not going to reflect how most articles are named (which do not ever go through WP:RM). I think the current revision currently reflects this WP:RM bias, if you will, and this is manifested by not clearly stating up front the primary naming principle in Wikipedia by which most articles are named: by using the most commonly used name of the topic of the article as the title of the article. It should also be noted that this was up front and clear before the recent changes began, if nothing else by having "Use the most easily recognized name" as the first principle listed in the relatively stable revision. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled as to why this is an "RM bias". It seems to me, from my experience in RM, that "use the most easily recognized name" is far and away the most-invoked principle in move requests. Why do you think that working in RM would lead one away from that principle? We use it constantly there. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at this edit, by the guy who's been making the most noise here about experience in RM. What did I list first, not second or third? That's right: recognizability. Now, what are you getting at? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's "recognizability", and "most recognizable name". But, you're right, it's closer than I thought.  I've made some changes that I think make it even better.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think those are good edits. I made one tweak. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Born2cycle that a preference for names over descriptions dominates these principles rather than emerging from them. Suppose, for example, that we wrote an article on Checkers, Nixon's pet dog. I put it to you that we would title it "Checkers (dog)", even though "Nixon's dog" is more recognisable, arguably easier to find, more precise, and more concise (and consistency has no application here). I am certain that preference for the title that uses the name would be near universal; yet I cannot see anything in the present convention that explains why this is so. Hesperian 01:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Most page moves don't get anywhere near WP:RM. They are discussed on the page in question - if at all. Neither does this article give advice only to those requesting that articles be moved. It is also advice for articles that are being created, and where to create them. Articles created an a less appropriate title, they may never be moved at all.

Drawing experience exclusively from WP:RM, suffers from selection bias. This does not mean that there is a deliberate "bias" on the part of those who advocate shaping the article to reflect experience from that forum. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to the nature of that bias, but regardless of that, I'm happy that there are editors here who lack it, and who can therefore check any excesses or omissions in my own limited perspective. I try to reciprocate in kind. It's a great process; I'm glad you're here to help with it. If you'd like to explain just what the RM bias entails, as it relates to biased edits I've made, I'm all ears. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be a selection bias in that RM deals less often with simple, uncontroversial moves to an obviously better name (it does do those, but not all of them); this is one reason I am happy to add that most moves are simple, uncontroversial, and obvious. On the other hand, this page has the same selection bias; simple, uncontroversial, and obvious naming decisions don't need conventions either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bizzare. So, you believe that unless editors are warring over the title of a page they don't need to be aware of conventions around capilatisation of words, the gerund of verbs, (in)definitive articles, the spelling out of abbreviations, national varieties of English and so forth? If so, you've hit the nail wrt "RM bias"! Most page creations/moves are uncontroversial - but that does not mean that editors do not need guidance regarding convention. Watch this page for a while and see an area outside of WP:RM where there is need for this policy page. One I'll leave unfixed for a while is RTTOV (radiative transfer code), just so you can see that this convention is not only needed by those involved in WP:RM. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Until a dispute arises, most people just name articles using common sense. Some people check WP:NC first, but I think most people just do what seems natural. Nobody has claimed that this convention is only for RM. Nobody. What we have asked is that you use your outside-of-RM experience to help us edit this policy page. If you'd rather talk about how we're biased than simply correct our bias.... then I don't understand why you were complaining earlier about too much abstract discussion. Can you pick a specific problem on the page and focus on it, or are you going to keep talking about issues 2 or 3 steps removed from policy? What needs to be fixed on this page now? Please, talk to us about edits. Show the effect of the bias on the actual policy page. Show us, please. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Déjà vu. In fairness, I commented on an earlier post (re: the "RM bias") and you replied to my comment asking me questions. It's late here in Ireland, I'll write up something concrete incorporating the "criteria" (since they are my biggest bug bear by far) and post it here for you to comment on. OK? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "RM bias" would lead anyone to believe. I've never spent much time over there. By "bias", I don't mean the usual sense of the word ("prejudice in favour of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered unfair"). I mean it in a sense similar to how it is used in statistics ("a systematic distortion of a statistical result due to a factor not allowed for in its derivation"). I believe that this is how Born2cycle means it too.
 * The essence is that WP:RM forms a subset of renaming debates that are in some way different from the entire population of renaming debates. (Indeed even the entire population of renaming debates form only a subset of situations in which WP:NC is drawn upon.) Therefore drawing exclusively upon experiences from WP:RM would lead to a significantly biased sample.
 * One example that jumps out at me of where that bias might be distorting the text of the page is the following: "Most articles will have a simple and obvious name that satisfies all of these - if so, use it; this page is intended for editors with more difficult problems." Eh? This is not a page for "problem cases" only. This page (should?) documents the naming convention employed on this encyclopedia for all articles (topic-specific conventions aside). Is the "RM bias" bearing it's influence in the assumption that only those cases with "difficult problems" should read on?
 * I also suspect the prescriptive "criteria" are a effect of an "RM bias" (- yes, no longer explicitly called "criteria" but still prescriptive). Normally, discussion of moves or a choice of new article title (as they occur on talk pages) have a more rounded quality - rather than a sense forcing discussion to jump between hoops. I dread to imagine how the eternal Ireland/Republic of Ireland discussions would go if it they had to fit between those "criteria". And what edit wars it would lead to. (In fact, I'm not even going to imagine it.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the principles come across as prescriptive, then please help fix them and make them more descriptive. You'll have my full support, speaking directly from RM experience, where I stringently oppose any "prescriptive" anything. Somehow, you think that RM would bias someone towards prescription, but I who have been most vocal about my RM experience have also come out consistently against the notion that we've got prescriptive rules of any kind. I'm interested in your outside-of-RM experience in page titling in non-dispute settings. Can you tell us what it's taught you about consensus, that we're currently missing? It's interesting that you perceive RM discussions as "forcing discussion to jump between hoops"? Can you explain what this means, and where you've observed this "hoop-jumping"? I'm puzzled why the naming conventions need to address the obvious cases - do you think that people go to read conventions when they're already sure what to do? The goal is not to write down a complete system of rules; the goal is to get the encyclopedia written. If that can be achieved without having to notate every detail, that's a Good Thing. Either way, I don't oppose documenting all of our best practices. What are we currently missing. Can we get concrete like that, or aren't we done with the abstract part? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that The "new" principles/criteria are too limited, too prescriptive, and do not reflect the range of criteria actually used by Wikipedia editors to make these decisions. Hoop-jumping occurs if things like Accuracy and Self-identification are arbitrarily excluded. However there appears to be strong resistance to including factors like these which are actually used by many editors.  Xan  dar   22:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the (extremely old) principles come across as too prescriptive, then can you please fix them and make them less so? Please? If there are principles that are missing, can you please add them? Can you cite examples of instances where unnecessary hoop-jumping has occurred? Can you point to any instance of someone saying, "gee WP:NC doesn't mention accuracy, I guess we can't think about it!" I do not remotely resist including these principles. I'd like to see them appropriately addressed. Can you help make that happen, in a focused manner? Why not add "Self-identification" to the list of principles, and then if you're reverted, start a talk-page section on it. BRD, come on. Start us off with the Bold. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do I think that people need to go to conventions when they are sure what to do? My experience from non-RM discussions (of all kinds) is that the people who are most sure of what to do are least likely to be aware of policy (if you get what I mean) - or else use it like a weapon.
 * I know that you have spoken against "rules", but yet at the same time you've added a second set of "rules" to the page. I would prefer if the "criteria" (if they are to stay) talked around the issues. Maybe because you feel so keen on IAR, you don't see a problem with a set list of criteria. Most editors are not so liberal with IAR and are unlikely to interpret this page in any way except literally (and wiki-lawyer over it).
 * In controversial situations the "principles" behind policy are what are important. It is crucial IMHO that if the "criteria" are kept that they be explained in the round, not as a check list of criteria. In any given case any one or more of the "criteria" may/should be ignored. It might be that it is just one of them trumps all others in the context. That needs to be explained to editors and they need guidance on how they should balance the competing demands of the "criteria" - not through specific examples, but through tone. That's where talking in the round comes in and where a list is more trouble that it's worth.
 * Outside of controversial situations people still need basic advice: How to capitalise? Do we abbreviate? What about verbs? What form of spelling? Should it be the "full name", the "official name", the "self identification" name, or the "common name" ... what is the "common name" - how can I find it? None of the are a big deal, none of them catch the headlines, but they are necessary. This encyclopedia is not only for old hands like us (my edit history on this a/c hides a longer past). Remember when you came here first ... did you read the FAQs? That's what this page is. It's not just for the "problem cases", it's for all cases. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um.... I added no rules to any page. I said that names tend to be optimized with a set of principles in mind, and I listed those. If people wiki-lawyer, then we must oppose them, and writing policy in as un-prescriptive a way as possible is one good way to do that. If you think that my examples of principles that are used came across like a list of rules, then by all means let's fix that problem! I note above that you said you'll work on that later. I am eager to see it. I'm also glad that we finally have figured out that we basically agree about this policy. Regarding lists versus talking in the round... I know that one can do more justice to a nuanced topic via more general discussion, but I also know that people remember and cite items on lists. Think about WP:NOT, for example. Look again at WP:WIARM. Those are lists of important points to remember, but they manage not to come off as overly bureaucratic. I think that Wikipedians are better at Ignoring all rules than you're giving them credit for. I read IAR when I first arrived, and I looked over a few pages about formatting and general. However - and I think I'm typical in this - 99% of my learning about Wikipedia came from working on it, and watching people act and interact. That's where policy is learned, for the most part. "Outside of controversial situations people still need basic advice: How to capitalise? Do we abbreviate? What about verbs? What form of spelling? Should it be the "full name", the "official name", the "self identification" name, or the "common name" ... what is the "common name" - how can I find it?" People are welcome to guess at these questions. They're welcome to be wrong. These things are fixed quickly and easily, and by being corrected, the newbie learns the custom without having to read a stupid page about it. That's the ideal. Newbie mistakes are a Good Thing. Embody your opposition to bureaucracy in a renewed dedication to keeping rules-lawyers from winning in the field. The best place to fight that fight is not on this utterly dispensable page. Let's write something pretty close to the right criteria that we can live with and agree to let develop as necessary, and then let's get out of here and into the field. This page is not worth spending these weeks going 12 rounds over. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Editing-while-discussing of a policy document
This policy document is undergoing large-scale change, beginning at the start of the month. That, in itself, is nothing disconcerting: consensus changes, policy changes. However, there are two aspects of the changes occurring to this page that worry me:


 * 1) Rather than a sub-page being used to draft a new version, the page itself is being altered rapidly by editors with competing views of what the "new consensus" is/should be. This is troublesome since the page is active as a live policy document. Editors come here to find out what policy. Instead they (most likely unbeknown to them) are reading a document that is in between consensus states and hotly debated by the editors involved. Policy documents need to reflect consensus, not a point mid-way between a previous consensus and a hypothetical new one.
 * 2) If new policy is being drafted then I believe that there is a lack of community involvement in approving of the new policy. That the page is undergoing large-scale revision has not to my knowledge been advertised to the community. When I challenged contributors as to why this was so, several of the those most involved responded that it is because they know what consensus is and thus don't need to approval for the changes from the community (see links to previous discussions below). I find it worrying that so few editors could make such large-scale changes to a policy document on the basis of what they "know" to be consensus - yet apparently be unable to reach agreement among themselves as to what that consensus is. (Bear in mind that this has been on-going for over two weeks.)

I have raised these points above, here and here, but did not receive satisfactory responses from contributors involved in the rewrite. I also raised some specific issues that I had with an earlier revision of the page (18 Sept). A previous RFC asked for outside comment on the removal of exceptions to "common name" for topic-specific naming conventions. That outside comment seemed to fall on the side that the exceptions should be returned to the document. Yet they have not been put back in.

Discussion of the changes extend two archives back. 243 edits have taken place since 6th Septembers (compared to typically 10-20 or so for other content-related policy documents). Eight editors are responsible for almost 85% of those edits.

I suggest that:


 * 1) The page should be reverted to an earlier stable version
 * 2) The current unstable version should be moved to a drafts page where it can be worked on by the editors involved
 * 3) When ready the new version should be advertised to receive community approval before replacing the stable version

This had been suggested by another editor shortly after the current round of editing begun. (The rapid editing of this page only came to my attention with the previous RFC.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm in favor of this suggestion, all three steps, for all of the reasons stated.  Policy should not be changed so quickly and lightly.  Thank you for doing this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've decided that unless the written policy in the current revision is clearly inconsistent with actual conventions, per discussions below, that a full revert is not justified.  Instead, I've incorporated some changes (see section above this one) that I think make it better.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm puzzled. I thought we were trying to avoid abstract discussion of editing theories, and this seems to be inviting precisely that. Can someone explain to me what I'm missing? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Another point, regarding the suggestions above. Number 3 seems to be based on a faulty idea of how policy works here. I recommend a review of WP:WIARM, coupled with a reminder that IAR is fundamental policy here. Wikipedia will never be a Robert's-Rules-of-Order committee discussion, in which things are proposed, then approved, then implemented. If Wikipedia ever turns into that, we will have lost. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent point. However, my interpretation of (3) is "make a reasonable effort to make sure there is consensus support before making potentially controversial changes".  It's akin to going through a WP:RM process for potentially controversial move request.  There's nothing wrong with making incremental changes, but the recent "revolution" here goes far beyond that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A reasonable effort to make sure there is consensus? What do you call the work I've been doing for the last 4 years in RM? How are you going to be sure about consensus unless you've seen in reflected in practice? Whatever comes out of a discussion here, no matter how well-advertised, will simply indicate whether a few people came to an agreement about a page one day. Consensus has the backing of thousands of times the number of respondents to any RFC. We don't ask people what consensus is. We use examples from the field to show what consensus already is. It's not done by taking a survey. Consensus formation doesn't happen in RFCs - it happens in the field, and that field is the policy page that we strive to read, and to approximate here. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, there is per-discussion consensus and broad consensus. What we seek in each RM discussion is per-discussion consensus among those participating  with respect to whether the proposed move should happen or not.  Here, we should be making a reasonable effort to achieve a per-discussion consensus about what the broad consensus is about naming, and that that is reflected accurately in this policy document, which is not necessarily the same as GTBacchus' opinion about what the broad consensus is about naming.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not my opinion. You're 100% correct about what we're seeking here. That's why I want others to edit alongside me, and correct my mistakes. That's different from insisting that each step of alongside editing must obtain some kind of bureaucratic prior approval. Just fix my mistakes by improving my edits, not by reverting them and demanding I obtain permission for the edit. Your opinion of what is sought in RM discussions is partly accurate. I would add to it that the broad consensus reflected across the totality of move discussions in the present and recent past are also discussed in individual cases, so the broad consensus is always in mind, and a live part of the discussion. We seem to be largely in agreement. Now, which specific inaccuracy in the policy do you want to fix first? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See the section prior to this one. That's the only biggy I am aware of.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Focus on it, not this. This section is all smoke and mirrors. Leave it. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After you... ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. What comra says is backed up by the debate at WP:Consensus, and by the relevant Wikipedia policies WP:CONLIMITED and Policies_and_guidelines. Changing the page so radically in such a confused manner is not on.  Xan  dar   22:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IAR is one of the five pillars. What does that mean to you? This page has been due a rewrite for some time, as is commented quite often in naming disputes. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing the need for change here, it's the process of rapid incremental change that is being questioned. Problematic as the earlier relatively stable revision was, I think the current revision is much less accurate with respect to describing how articles are actually named, and, so, much less useful.  I don't think the work has to be scrapped, just major concerns such as the one I have raised in the previous section need to be addressed and related problems rectified.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. I think that discussing major inaccuracies that you perceive is a very good idea. I think that discussing whether rapid incremental change is desirable is nearly as good of an idea. It might help to realize that instability on this page does not cause disturbances off of this page, to my knowledge. People working in the field are making policy, being policy, not reading it. Most people learn policy by working, not by reading. This page is not nearly as powerful as some may imagine. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "This page is not nearly as powerful as some may imagine." But yet it doesn't hurt to be cautious - even when wielding only a little power. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't think it's any power, except in one sense: it's power if people believe that Wikpedia is a rules game, and it's power if the rules-lawyers are right. Therefore, by acknowledging it as power, we empower the rules-lawyers. That's a deal-breaker for me; I won't play into their hand; it's cancer. If you want to address how power is inappropriately wielded, go to move discussions where someone is saying, "it must be done because the holy page says so," and remind them: "IAR is policy. Read the situation, not the rule." That's how you can prevent policy abuse. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many people involved in RM discussions already know what policy is and more-or-less what this page says. I've been in many RM discussions that involved arguments based on references to this policy and other naming guidelines, sometimes explicitly sometimes implicitly.  I suppose we could wait until people start proposing the moves of articles at relatively obscure topic names to more descriptive titles in the name of "recognizability", but I think it's better to revert the current stuff, focus on a draft, get it right, then update here.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, many people know what it says. The ones who understand better how to edit here know that what it says is not what's written, but the underlying agreed-upon norms that we constantly reinforce, listen to, respond to, and grow with. There is no need to revert to some previous version and obtain prior approval for edits. That's a good way to descend into the pits of bureaucracy, please help keep us out of there. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who take part in centralised RM discussions, sure, maybe. I don't know. That is not the only place that this page is used - it's not even the only place where moves are discussed. From my experience, most moves are discussed on the page in question itself. If at all. Then consider articles that are created, and never moved. This page advises on how to *name* articles - it is not a guide to WP:RM. It is a very skewed view to imagine that WP:RM is the only forum where the titles of article is discussed.
 * 200 people-a-day view this page. Those that participate at WP:RM, I imagine, are only a fraction of that - if they figure at all. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rannpháirtí, of course you're right. That's why I haven't claimed that WP:RM is the only forum where the titles of articles are discussed. That would be a very absurd claim, for the reasons you cite. That's why it's a good thing I'm not the only person editing this page, and that's why I invite improvements to my edits from others. Does that seem wrong to you, that I should value my own experience, and also value that of others? How have I indicated that I don't value the experiences of others, or that RM somehow has got a monopoly on move discussions? Or, is that not what you're talking about. It's not clear to me what you're talking about, as far as it relates to edits on this policy page. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw the conversation in this section start, but I just now saw that it's been turned into an RFC and advertised on the Village Pump. What I'm wondering is, what is the issue for discussion here? That many edits have been made to the document is self evident, and the possibility that could be a concern is there, but it's already happened. What is the RFC therefore advocating for? Page protection, more participation, "punishment" for the supposed offenders who've dared to edit a policy page? Anyway, the RFC hardly deinflates the dispute here. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 00:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The RFC is very clear on what it is advocating, even numbering each of the three items (none of which involves page protection or "punishment", by the way). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. #1 is definitely protection, and in an active sense. #2 is punishment, and #3 is a form of forum shopping. If those are actually serious proposals (I took them to be more sensationalist in nature when I first read this), then I suggest that those of you who are participating here do something outside of the Wikipedia namespace for a while. Actually, I recommend that to everyone here. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 00:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If everyone here were to pitch in and close two or three requests in the RM backlog, that would be helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I'm more guilty then most others here of this criticism, since I was an active participant at RM for a while. It's just, I've been working on something else for a while now (this month, basically), so participating slightly in Wikipedia space (read: discussion for it's own sake) is pretty much the limit of my participation right now. That's taking up far too much of my time as well, and my sense is that most people who participate in these "policy wonk" discussions are in a similar situation, so basically all of our sniping should be taken with a handful of salt anyway. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "#1 is definitely protection..." I don't want the page protected. I don't want it "frozen" in time. Consensus changes. Typos are fixed. But a policy page needs to be stable and trusthry to some degree. Check that there's consensus first, then change it.
 * "...#2 is punishment..." I don't want anyone punished. No-one has done anything "wrong". Discuss, make changes, but don't disrupt policy pages as you do so (as well meaning as you may be).
 * "...and #3 is a form of forum shopping." Check that there is consesnus to change policy before you change it. I'm certainly not advotacting that anyone be selective about where they check with outhers, or advertise it in multiple places until they get the answer they want. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rannpháirtí, I would claim that we are doing our best to check that there is consensus. It's just that such consensus is not sought in discussions on this talk page, because this isn't where it lives. Consensus lives in the encyclopedia, and on a million talk pages, and WikiProject talk pages, and individual naming convention guideline/essays/what have you. Consensus lives in your experience of what you've seen people agree to, out there, in any forum. You can't read consensus from a poll of people who respond to RFCs on content pages. That's a horribly skewed sample; it contains myself, for example! (not sarcastic) If there's an edit for which you dispute the consensus, then make that dispute clear, and argue via examples and other means what the consensus truly is - out there. Obtaining prior permission for edits to policy pages - even major ones - is simply not part of Wikipedia. That's not how this site works, per our fundamental and foundational policy: Ignore all rules. It's one of the 5 pillars. Pick an edit. Explain how you know that consensus is such-and-such, and then make the edit. If it sticks, super. If it's reverted, use the talk page section you already started to discuss the edit, and not the fact that it was reverted, or the fact that things have been changing quickly. If you wish to fix the policy page rather than engage in abstract discussions, then I advise you to leave this thread, and focus on improving the policy page. No prior permission for edits. Just join us in editing, and explain how we're wrong. We invite correction, but not being told we have to get prior approval. Be pragmatic: you will not get what you want by insisting that we change policy according to your preferred model. You'll end up in endless discussions about preferred models - look at us right now. You will get what you want by simply joining the collaborative editing process, and working together in collegial harmony with us, your colleagues. We want your input on the policy, not on whether you like the way we drive. Leave this section, and create the reality you want. Or: Answer my points, tell me why I'm wrong, discuss policy in the abstract. I can go all week, and then you'll still be here, talking to me. Sounds cozy! -GTBacchus(talk) 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is bloody ridiculous. If one thing is certain here, it is that there is now less consensus for the "stable version" than for the current version. We're not going to roll back a month of progress, just to satisfy procedural objections. Hesperian 01:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but based on my reply above that's probably obvious... — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (the idea of going back to a "stable" version). Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Pages are edited to improve them. If a page is stable for some time, that may mean it's so perfect that no-one can find any way of improving it; but more likely (and certainly true in this case) it's just that no-one has been paying it much attention for a long period. So when suddenly people do start paying it some attention - shock horror - it CHANGES. The more improvements that are made, the more it changes, and the better it gets. Sometimes particular changes are felt not to be improvements - they get reverted, and solutions are sought, and the page gets even better. Anyone who thinks this fundamental wiki process is a bad thing because it represents "instability" should probably find a different website to spend their time on. --Kotniski (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kotniski, I think that's a particularly clear articulation of what I've been trying to say above. I would only take issue with your last sentence, and alter it, perhaps: "Anyone who thinks this fundamental wiki process is a bad thing because it represents "instability" should probably instead embrace the process via which this whole website exists, remind themselves what "Ignore all rules" means, and join us in improving the policy in a focused and broadly-informed manner - and in realtime, on the "live" page." Yeah. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Procedure is clear. Substantive changes to policy must be advertised widely to, and approved by, the Community as a whole. Five or six editors agreeing on this page do not make a consensus to change the Wikipedia policy page - or breach the old stable consensus. I have quoted the policies that say this. All I have seen in response are the assertions by the editors wanting to push through the changes, that they represent a consensus. Not so. There is not even a consensus on this page for those changes.  Xan  dar   22:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're entirely incorrect about how policy is edited here. One of our five pillars is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." That's a fundamental pillar, on par with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." It matters, and it's right. A consensus of you and a few other editors can not change that. If I'm wrong, go take the fifth pillar off of WP:5P and rename it WP:4P. Most of our current policies were never "advertized widely and approved by the community as a whole." Never. That never happened with most of the WP:MOS, never happened with WP:NPOV, never happened with WP:RM, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS, nor even earlier versions of this page. The story about obtaining prior community approval is fiction. The consensus we're talking about is not among five or six editors on this page, but among thousands of editors, as observed in thousands of situations by all of us. We can never get them all here, so we have to work from what we're all observed. Your observations... you haven't been sharing as much, so I guess you don't want as much input. I think that's too bad, because I would value your participation in the policy edits we're making. We'll be stronger with you than without you. Come on. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When Neutrality created the Five Pillars' page, the 5th pillar (which is not "ignore all rules", but rather "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules", albeit that it is linked to IAR) was not itself one of the "firm rules" referred to. Logic is simple: How can a rule that there are no firm rules be a firm rule? You keep citing IAR as it it were compulsary. It's not. Rules are not there to be ignored (think copyright, BIO, etc.). But if they prevent the encyclopedia from being improved, do ignore them. That's big "if" - and it has always been a part of IAR.
 * IAR is not a license for dicks (that is not say that you are a dick). Rules exist. Ignore them if they prevent you from improving the encyclopedia. Otherwise, work with others per the 4th pillar. To my mind, that means not distrupting a page that others use to reference consensus. (And yes, it is obvious that the edits taking place over the past three weeks do not all have consensus - if it was not so then they the page would not be so unstable.) The warring taking place over the content of this page is unfair to other Wikipedians that use it. This page is not your personal playground and IAR is no excuse. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving it in a state that we know doesn't represent consensus would be even more unfair. (And though handbags may have been briefly deployed on a couple of occasions, I wouldn't describe what's been going on here as "warring", just constructive editing.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "warring" exactly, I agree. Genuine warring, to my mind, involves a degree of poor faith. That has not be an element of the "warring" that has been taking place on this page.
 * Regarding, whether the previously stable version was out of date or not - I don't know, I'll take your word for it, I don't see what was wholly wrong with it. I think it's a falacy to say, "Well, X was wrong, so it doesn't matter that we changed it to Y because Y is also wrong." X (at the very least) had consensus at some point. Y does not share that quality.
 * If a policy page is in a state that is unreflective of consensus, regardless of whether it says X or Y, I think that should be flagged to users (givings about the meaning of policy and IAR aside). I think if the revision is to go ahead on the live page it needs to be pointed out to users that the page is in a state of flux. The "discussion" tag captures that to some extent. Is it enough? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you participating in this pointless, pointless conversation rather than simply helping edit the page to the point where we won't need flags or tags? You're not going to convince people to revert to some "stable version" and then obtain prior approval for future edits. You may try, but you will waste months of your life, and you will be disappointed at the end. Please don't spend your time on Earth that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop wasting our energy arguing about whether there is consensus, and if so, how much, and which version had the most consensus. If you disagree with something, tell us what, and why. We'll discuss it. Perspectives will alter as a result of discussion. Insight will come. Compromises will be made. Eventually, nearly all of us will agree on how to proceed. Someone will edit the page. We'll discuss some more. The wording will be edited and re-edited until it is satisfactory to nearly everyone. Then you can tell us the next thing you disagree with, and we'll go around again. That's how it works. When we work this way, we get traction on the issues, and we move forward. Discussing how much consensus there is and which version had the most consensus equals no traction equals spinning our wheels and getting nowhere. Hesperian 11:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good for those editing the page. Not so good for those relying on the page's trustworthiness as a policy document. The same editing cycle could take place on a subpage without disrupting the page's value to the 200-odd editors a day who read it. The irony is that the page itself gives gudiance on how it should be ammended. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hesperian 13:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all convinced that it makes sense to worry about people "relying on the page's trustworthiness as a policy document." In fact, I would outright deny that instability on this page causes any disturbance, anywhere else on Wikipedia. Pending evidence that edits here are disruptive elsewhere, I don't believe it at all. This page is not nearly as important as people are making it out to be, and its minor value is not disrupted by the activity here. Now, Rannpháirtí: You're still talking about editing policy in the abstract. You didn't want to do that, remember? Why are you doing it, then? Please stop talking about this abstract stuff, and focus on conversations about actual edits. What is specifically incorrect about the page right now? Pick one issue, and work on it. Or, keep talking about instability, and we'll still be in this pointless thread next week. You will never convince us to edit this page the way you want us to. You will be much better of if you stop knocking your head against that wall, and just use the door already. Make a decision. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * @Hesperian, I hear ya. In the mean time, would you be OK with placing the on the page? I appreciate your concern about actually reaching agreement on whatever changes you have planned, in the mean time I am more concerned about readers of the page. Marking clearly to them that the page is under revision and so in flux would satisfy me.
 * @GTBacchus: RE: "I would outright deny that instability on this page causes any disturbance, anywhere else on Wikipedia." You may be right, you may be wrong. I would prefer to err on the side of caution. To turn this statement around, why are you so concerned with the contents of a page you think so little of it and it's impact on the community? RE: "You didn't want to do that, remember?" No, I don't remember. RE: "You will never convince us to edit this page the way you want us to." That's was obvious to me from the outset! I opened the RFC imagining it might attract outside opinion. I'm disappointed that it didn't. Would you be OK with the until things normal service resumes? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not "so concerned with the contents of this page," and I never said I was. My chief concern is that it not be written prescriptively, because it gradually hurts Wikipedia when our policies look too much like rules. Beyond that, I'm not too particular about precisely what it says. Most of what I've been saying on this page is geared, not towards getting some preferred edit of mine on the policy page, but to convince others that the policy page is not some kind of holy shrine, and not something that's worth obtaining prior approval for edits, even significant ones. My chief goal here has been to say: If you are concerned with the contents of the page, then talk about that exclusively, and stop talking about how other people edit the page. Just jump in." Am I okay with the "under construction" template? Of course. It doesn't bother me one bit. Seeing people have meta-conversations in which they try to reinforce superstitions about the importance of policy pages bothers me. Don't err on the side of caution. Err on the side of boldness, because until I see a disturbance caused by instability on this page, I am no more going to take that into account than I do other fictions, such as the tooth-fairy. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a wiki, edit it. Now you know how scientists and doctors feel when articles about science or medicine get editied ;-) Get to work and cooperate. Use the tools that mediawiki offers you to ensure that changes are solid and correct. I have no clue how or why people think that "editing a separate page" is of use to anyone, except those who want to obscure diffs and hide what they are actually doing. Policy pages are like all wiki-pages, do not rely on them too heavily. Talk with people, form a consensus. At the end of the day, everything is your responsibility, not the responsibility of any policy page, version of a policy page, or what have you. Let me repeat that, what you do is your responsibility. If an older "stable" version of a policy page says what you want/mean better than the current version, link to the older version, or even modify the page (WP:CCC, WP:COMMON). If no page describes what you need to do, that's fine too. If you do find new ways of doing stuff document it. That's what the wikimedia namespace is there for. Please do not play nomic, and do not play politics, that's what this RFC is doing. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The procedure is that policy pages need additional stability, and consensus for substantive changes. What is happening at the moment is a complete mess. The page is a disaster. As is the talk page. A few people who seem able to spend 24/7 on the page are having long, convoluted impenetrable discussions on changing a dozen different things at once - and this is making the discussion completely inaccessible for the vast majority of editors. As far as the page is concerned, no-one can tell what is consensus and what isn't, and we have a limited set of very arbitrary "principles" suddenly on the page, which in my opinion do not generally correllate with the ones that editors actually use in making naming decisions. In addition there are issues where certain editors insistently edit-out contributions that displease them. I fear what will emerge from this is a policy page that is generally ignored - until changes are taken in hand by proper process.  Xan  dar   02:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we could be sure this page was ignored, that would be a great achievement... Perhaps (and I mean this as a serious suggestion) we could say nothing else on this page except that we have no overall policy on how to name articles, requested moves is thataway, each individual case is decided by consensus, and here's a list of guideline pages that people often take into account when deciding what name is most appropriate. Would that not be much simpler and much more accurate?--Kotniski (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar: Please provide the pertinent paragraphs of this purported proper procedure. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Draft for further improvement
In the spirit of those who want work on pages to take place away from those pages, I've started working on a personal draft version, based on the current version but trying to simplify it for accessibility. It's at User:Kotniski/NC (only the lede and the first few sections have been changed so far, the rest is all the same as what's on this page). Any comments or co-editing welcome.--Kotniski (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that... "Any third_rate engineer or researcher can increase complexity; but it takes a certain air of real insight to make things simple again." -E.F. Schumacher --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

City names
Currently at WP:RM: proposals to move St. Louis, Missouri to St. Louis and Cleveland, Ohio to Cleveland. At present, both move targets are redirects to the move candidates. --Una Smith (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Using the new wording in RM decisions.
I must say, I find the new format, laying out the principles here, to be very useful in making decisions on RM discussions, like this one about moving Communist Romania → Socialist Republic of Romania. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, that's what they're for. I would balance them differently in applying them; but that's what the discussion is for - and your edit has some hope of breaking the "you're a Communist"/ "you're a bully" cycle the locals are in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting the wisdom of your own post in that discussion is not that convincing.  Xan  dar   22:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Change to Common Names wording.
I see someone has made yet another change to the common-name wording, placing it back in a more commandment-style form, yet without the "exceptions" phrase. This is really getting ridiculous. I fear this argument is looking like heading for a forum where these continuous changes, will not keep confusing paricipation and discussion.  Xan  dar  22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's helpful if you can provide a link to the offending edit. Edits are not necessarily easy to isolate when coming in from the outside. Also, I don't understand your last sentence here. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the discussion
This unfortunate edit claims, in its edit summary, that the response to the earlier RFC was that this should stay. This RFC says nothing of the kind; the two accounts who started the RFC said so; everyone else disagreed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just read the RFC, responded to it myself, and pretty much agree with what PMAnderson says here about it. I would say nearly everyone else disagreed. That is, there is consensus agreement to remove the statement about exceptions.   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I missed somebody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "... the two accounts who started the RFC said so; everyone else disagreed."
 * "I would say nearly everyone else disagreed."
 * Eh? All but two uninvolved editors who responded explicity agreed the "exceptions" should stay (Arthur Rubin, gadfium, WhatamIdoing, Colin, Dirk Beetstra, R.T.G.). Those who didn't were Ben MacDui - who, between all of the drum-beating over what is the common name for Bruma and acuasation about Xander's block history, couldn't make head-nor-tail of what was going on - and myself, who said that I didn't believe that there was consensus for all of the changes occuring.
 * How that can be interpreted as meaning "everyone else disagreed" or "nearly everyone else disagreed" I cannot understand ... unless it's meant in the sort of way that means, "everyone that counts".
 * I'll state it again, I think there are some ownership issues going on here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Out with it then: who thinks they own this page? So long as this accusation is vague and unaddressable, it is unconstructive and arguably disruptive. Tell who is showing an unhealthy sense of entitlement here, so that they can reflect upon your observation and modify their behaviour ... unless you mean all of us, in which case I vote we celebrate our mutual engagement; this is precisely the kind of buy-in that makes this community great. Hesperian 12:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. With editors practically begging you, Rannpháirtí, to edit alongside us and correct our biases and mistakes, I don't see how you can make even a vague claim about ownership. Why don't you just accept the invitation to edit the page alongside us, and correct our biases and mistakes? Would you rather talk about editing the policy than edit the policy? Why? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hesperian -
 * I think that editors who heavily edit a page without due consideration for the users that document while they do so show "an unhealthy sense of entitlement."
 * I think the editors who look at an RFC in which "outside" opinion was universally in support, while "inside" opinion was near universally against, and come to the conclusion that opinion was universally against show "an unhealthy sense of entitlement" as a group.
 * I don't mean this as a "accusation", but, as you say, an observation to "reflect upon".
 * GTBacchus - Why don't I accept the invitation to edit the page alongside you? Why would I rather talk about editing than edit? ... Huh? This thread exists because I did edit the page. My edit was reverted. (As were my edits before them.) My post above is a direct response to the reason given for them being reverted, which I dispute. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. My bit was triggered by your accusation of ownership. You're right about the rest. I guess I saw the meta- part - your accusation of ownership - and thought, why is he talking about irrelevant stuff? I was still in the mindset from the two previous replies I posted above, entreating you to leave the abstract discussion behind. I reckon I went with that momentum, without considering that in this thread we're in the context of talking about your current edit. Silly of me. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, one must be exceedingly careful when one posts links like this one, because people will look at the page content but won't necessarily bother to parse the URL. Thus they may fail to note that you selected a very specific date range, one that finished three days ago, prior to the bulk of rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's edits to the page. Naturally you would not wish to mislead people, which is why I say much care is needed, and also why you'll no doubt want to thank me for producing a link to equivalent statistics ranging over the period during which rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid has been engaged in this: Hesperian 05:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was lazy and just copied and pasted the link from above (originally posted three days ago). I'd say this link is more accurate. It's not only up-to-date but covers the entire range of the current period of active editing (going by the date given in your diff of changes above).
 * If you now think that it was my reversion of those changes that spurred the current period of heavy editing (11 days after the date you originally gave) then the link you provide it is more appropriate. I don't think I did. Indeed, have I not been lambasted for deploring that editors stop editing the page and reach agreement for a new version first? Subsequent to my posting of the comment you reply to above, I conceded that consensus is not on my side and thus made some edits.
 * As you say, one must be exceedingly careful when one posts links like that. Naturally you would not wish to mislead people. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to remove the exceptions clause?
Reading PMAs post, I just did a survey of the choked acres of text above, and dug out the responses to the RFC on removal of the exceptions clause to the Common Names convention. As of the time of this post...

Approving removal of the exceptions clause:


 * Knepferle, PMAnderson, Hesperian, Vegaswikian, PBS, Kotniski, Peregrine Fisher, Sandpiper, Born2Cycle.

Opposing removal of the exceptions clause:


 * Xandar, Arthur Rubin, StormRider, WhatamIdoing, Colin, Dirk Beestra, Doc James, Comra.

I therefore at this point see no consensus to remove the exceptions clause.  Xan  dar  02:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if this were correct counting (which it is not; nobody supports always use common names, which is impossible; only one person - and it's not me - supports use common names wherever possible), it would miss the point. The exceptions clause has no consensus; it should not be part of any page which asserts that it is consensus. There is consensus on what many of these are saying: don't always use common names - but the present text says that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we refuse page moves if there is no consensus for the new name, even if it is correct under this quideline. So why should we approve changes here if there is no consensus to change?  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because there is no consensus to keep. Page moves, unlike policy pages, don't claim to represent consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that defies logic. If there is no consensus to change, then why change?  If there is no clear consensus, then what is gained by changing from something that exists and may not continue to have a consensus to something new that does not have consensus?  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think there was consensus to change; the comments Xandar notes are consensus against changing to "use common names whenever possible", which only Born2Cycle wants.


 * But as a matter of principle, if there were no clear consensus, then this page should not assert either side, and we should be silent, or acknowledge disagreement. Leaving something in policy on which there is no agreement leads to policy being ignored; pages that say foolish things because two or three editors wanted them in 2003 are no help to the project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there was no consensus for these "exceptions", they would not exist in naming conventions like flora and medicine. You don't like it, we can all tell, but there evidently is consensus (particularly in certain subject domains) to sometimes not use the common name(s) for some things.
 * "...the comments Xandar notes are consensus against changing to..." The RFA was on the removal of the reference to specific "exceptions" to common name. That is what uninvolved editors commented on. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This, like Xandar's original complaint, confounds two different issues.
 * There is consensus (Born2Cycle standing out) that Consistency may be followed against Common Usage in certain subject areas - I am part of it; reservations on how it should be followed and how far are secondary.
 * There is also consensus (Xandar standing out) that the exception clause was not the way to do this; Flora and medicine do what they do because there are benefits which Common Name does not capture. The exceptions clause can be abused to permit guidelines to say whatever they like, whether or not any other benefit results. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The RFA was on a single issue: the removal of "exceptions" for other conventions. In any event, it doesn't matter now. It's resolved. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was misleading, and the numbers above are meaningless. The removal of this clause was one small consequence of a profound change to the overall thrust and emphasis of the convention. The idea that one tiny change could be excised and presented for approval as though it were independent of everything else is ridiculous. Dragging in some people to vote on an issue based on a misleading briefing is never constructive, and most times the outcome is as misleading as the briefing was. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Hesperian 06:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well put.--Kotniski (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree to the extent that comments from those on the "approve" side seemed to be all over the place - discussing everything from Xander's block history to the common name of Burma rather than the subject of the RFC itself. Those listed in the "oppose" side above were far more focused:
 * "The removal of the term exceptions from the article ... I don't agree with it." - Arthur Rubin
 * "Should the common name prevail? Of course not. ... Exceptions are a sign of flexibility and an understanding that Wikipedia is not run as a police state yet." - StormRider
 * "Editors should not have to guess whether the two-sentence WP:COMMONNAME is elevating the common names guideline above subject-matter guidelines." - WhatamIdoing
 * "It needs to be made much clearer that 'choose the common name' is a generally useful rule but that there are exceptions." - Colin
 * "...add to the WP:COMMONNAME part that exceptions lined out in Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Specific conventions and other guidelines should be followed..." - Dirk Beestra
 * "Attempt to enforce common names will alienate a lot of medical editors and will make many pages confusing." - Doc James
 * I have excepted Xander from the above list as the original proposer - so his opposition to the change is known - and myself since my comment was more general ("...I find it difficult to believe that all of [the changes] carry consensus.").
 * Neither did any of the "outsiders" think that Xander's brief was "misleading" though a great many of them did criticise those "insiders" that claimed so. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well even if they didn't realize it, the comments you quote certainly confirm that they were misled. They all seem to think that the changes that have taken place have been in the direction of elevating "common name" above other principles, whereas in fact the reverse is true. --Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They were all talking explicitly about the removal of the "exceptions" to common name for topic-specific naming conventions. That was the subject of the RFC. Their responses demonstrate that there is a desire to state somehow that exceptions to common name exist. (Your comment, that the same thing can be expressed through a restructure is not in opposition to what they wrote.)
 * In any event, the current version of the "common name" section is not so off target, IMHO. And has the bones of something better about it. (Although I'm afraid to touch after while this thread is as it is.) If an explicit reference to "except when" for topic-specific naming conventions is not preferred by others here, I can see their wisdom. Talking around why, where and when another name may be preferred to the common name, and saying that some topic-specific naming conventions say to use something else, is better IMHO. (The second paragraph does not do a good job of expressing that as it is now, but I guess that's what it's supposed to be doing.)
 * Rather than giving a cart blanche to anyone to pick something other than common name just because they got a group of editors to agree to another convention, or to rule out exceptions unless they are written down in stone, it's better to advice editors of the wisdom of knowing when not to choose common name - but not to do so without good reason (probably related to a specific subject domain). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A good example there is the naming for military units. The guidance basically follows the common name but extends it to be the official name which is generally a slightly longer version of the common name but clear to readers. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I think that to lump Hesperian, PBS, and Born2Cycle into the same group shows a profound misunderstanding of the opinions that have been expressed on this talk page. There are a range of views being expressed and there is overlap between them, but they do represent differences of opinion that can not simply be divided up into for and against exceptions. To do that does not help us reach a consensus on what we do agree upon and build upon it. -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of points. 1) I think the RFC was as clear as it possibly could be considering the state of radical flux of the page at the moment. It singles out one important change, the removal of reference to the exceptions to "use common names" provided by the guidelines. Hesperian and some others argue that changes to the rest of the page make this unecessary. That is their point of view - one not shared by the objectors. And even those supporting the change have varying views on what the other proposed changes mean. On top of that, the page itself is so unstable no one can be sure what it means or what the final proposal will look like. Isolating one central and dramatic change is therefore one clear way of focussing discussion and seeing what changes have consensus. 2.) I don't think there is any demand for any particular form of wording, however, as comra says, the page needs to retain wording that indicates that the conventions contain advice on specific contexts in which names other than Common Names are used by editors - and not just restricted those set out in the "principles" section.. Arthur Rubin and I attempted several forms of alternative wording to this effect earlier on in this argument - but they were all opposed. That was not helpful to building consensus.  Xan  dar   00:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken my life in my hand and [rewritten the second para to common names section. The main thrust is to not say "except where" explicitly but to explain why and where to use something other than what might be common name. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ([[User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid|coṁrá]]) 12:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would seem to cover the case.  Xan  dar   00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A poorly edited and idiosyncratic view into some page moves
A while ago I prepared a page by copying links of each move request I had closed into a list: User:GTBacchus/RM closings. Editing it to make it useful has been slow. It is of course incomplete and as idiosyncratic as my own perspective. Still, someone wanting to see a lot of examples of people talking about page titles - it the setting of a move discussion - can find a lot there. When I edit this page, I try to keep those discussions in mind, and listen to what editors have said, from all sides. I'm glad that there are editors on this page representing different perspectives, and I offer this as nothing more than a snapshot of Wikipedia through my eyes. I make no claims about the "correctness" of all of my decisions in RM work. Nevertheless, I hope someone finds the history there to be interesting or useful. Thanks for listening. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistency
I find it difficult to trace the details, but someone made "Consistency" apply only when "Common Names" isn't applicable for other reasons. I find no consensus for that change. Anywhere. If I don't see some reason for it, I'm going to revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't me, but I agree that using something other than the most common name whenever possible is not being consistent. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am starting to doubt one of your good faith or English comprehension. There is no credible way that anyone could read that as my being in favor of "common name" being primary, or that "consistency" could mean anything other than "similar articles should have similar names".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It was PBS. The edit summary was "first cut at wording that fits better with the concept of using reliable sources". I too disapproved of the edit. I didn't revert because the relationship between consistency and reliable sources has indeed been under discussion, and I figured someone would attempt to refine PBS's "first cut". Hesperian 06:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Arthur Rubin there was no mention of common names, the wording I put in place. The wording was "Sometimes reliable sources do not indicate what is the most appropriate name for the title of an article in a general encyclopaedia because the name used in reliable sources are mentioned within a specific context. ..." Do you really think that Wikipedia should name articles, by names other than those used in reliable sources if a name is available in reliable sources? -- PBS (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently he does, and so do a lot of other people, which is why we do it. If you keep making edits to this page based on your personal feelings about how things should be, knowing that actual accepted practice is different, then you're just acting like a POV-pusher in article space.--Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Best he answers for himself. Do your think think that Wikipedia should name articles, by names other than those used in reliable sources if a name is available in reliable sources? -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that even you do, in some situations; if the "name available in reliable sources" is a more common name for something else. I don't have much objection to that rewrite of the common names principle, but it should be clear that's still not the primary principle to be used.  Consistency can and should override the common name principle where there is consensus.  The self-naming principle should almost certainly override the common name principle unless one of the other principles provides reason for not using it, such as in Edward and Elaine Brown.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was not rewriting the common name section. The wording I was suggesting was for a bullet point on consistency, and had nothing to say on common names one way or another and certainly nothing on the "common name" of "self-naming" issue. -- PBS (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, the editor who reported what he thought I was complaining about was mistaken that it was your (PBS)'s edit. I was complaining about the edit (since removed) that specified that the consistancy priniciple applied to the choice of which common name was to be used.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Other conventions section
Kotniski, good call. I had been working on something similar (and an infobox based version). I think there's a lot more that could be tidied up there to make it more usable - but that's a good start. Well done. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The navbox idea looks good too - I think we should add it to the pages. (I'd been thinking of something like that but vertical - like the MoS navbox - but I don't know if that would be practicable.) Meanwhile I'm going to try some similar ToC reduction with the "Name construction" section.--Kotniski (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever else may have been achieved over the past few weeks, I can now see the whole table of contents on my screen at one time. Progress... --Kotniski (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Got a bit radical and stripped out everything that is documented elsewhere (why duplicate it in a rough-and-ready form when the user can read it in it's original form just a click away?) putting them in a vertical nav box. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! I think we ought to create separate pages for those topics still covered in detail on this page though (or combine them with some existing conventions if possible) - it looks a bit odd to have a couple of topics treated here when all the others are elsewhere (it might make people think there's something special about these conventions, when in fact they're just the ones that no-one ever got round to creating guideline pages for as yet).--Kotniski (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd completely agree. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sept Update
I generally don't do monthly diffs for policy pages where there are big changes throughout the page, but if someone wants me to, I will. It's a lot to keep up with, maybe the diff should be done by someone more familiar with recent discussions here. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a note that there have been significant changes; the actual text here is still being developed, and will take a while to stabilize. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my sense. Okay, done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Systemic bias?
Earlier today, an administrator-assisted move was undone at Consumer Watchdog, with the initial argument that wp:name shouldn't be used to further systemic bias. I believed the move to be uncontroversial: two organizations share the name "Consumer Watchdog" (one in the United States, the other in Botswana). The California-based group appears to be vastly more prevalent in common usage (67,400 hits) than the group based in Botswana (2,350). Google search result hits are not, at all, a scientific way to measure common usage, but I think they can help demonstrate relativity in many cases, and a nearly thirty to one ratio would seem to indicate one is arguably in common usage in the English language, while the other is clearly not. Since both articles have had only one primary editor, it seems like a move discussion would not be likely to bring in any diversity of opinions, so I'm hoping a discussion here could help clarify. user: J  aka justen (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One would have thought the American one was the primary topic here, but some people are very reluctant ever to admit there's a primary topic for any name, particularly when there are nationalist sentiments involved (hell, even China doesn't get to be at its natural name). Maybe you could raise it at the disambiguation project/guideline pages, since that's where the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC principle is discussed.--Kotniski (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not enough coffee this morning. Thanks for the suggestion, moved there.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thread about self-identification etc.
There's a thread starting at WT:Naming convention draft which may be of general interest, concerning the extent to which we may take account of such factors as self-identification in choosing titles. (The discussion could be moved to this page in fact.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)