Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 24

Non-article titles
Do we have the equivalent of this page that specifically addresses naming pages in the Wikipedia namespace? I haven't been able to find one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The closest we have is WP:Policies and guidelines... However that does specify how to choose the title. So, no, we don't have an equivalent of this page specifically for entitling WP pages. The next question is... Is there really a need for one?  Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought so - common sense ought to suffice. (If there are any rules, WP:Project namespace might be a good place for them.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought it was needed... except for encountering an editor who (as far as I can make out) thinks that if a page is named "Wikiproject Foo/Guideline", it's magically an approved guideline, even if it contradicts the main guidelines, and the authors skipped the usual WP:Guideline process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you proposing some kind of convention prohibiting the misleading use of "Guideline" and "Policy" in project space titles?--Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely a whole page would be overkill. Perhaps a single sentence at WP:POLICY would be sufficient.  (I'm not even sure that's necessary, since nobody reads the directions anyway.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We do have Category:Names for categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Product names - include manufacturer's name?
What are the general rules (if any) regarding whether an article should be called "Adobe Photoshop" or just "Photoshop"?

I see both styles a lot. There's "Microsoft Windows", but just "Windows 7", not "Microsoft Windows 7". There's "Sony Vegas", but just "VAIO", not "Sony VAIO".

If there are any rules, could they please be included in this article. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny you should ask. But some recent CfD discussions got me thinking that we probably need something in the naming conventions to cover brands.  Not convinced that this is needed here, but it may be in Wikipedia:Category names. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "rule" that applies is WP:COMMONNAME... ie if most reliable sources include the manufacturer when referring to the product, so do we... if they do not include the manufacturer then neither do we. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Although if that is the rule I'm thinking that "Adobe Photoshop" should just be called "Photoshop". --RenniePet (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that Adobe tends to market their products as "Adobe (whatever)", including "Adobe Photoshop" "Adobe Flash", "Adobe Acrobat", etc.  On the other hand, many people mistake that the Wii is really the "Nintendo Wii", which it isn't by Nintendo's marketing. So common name, including a weighted amount from the manufacturer, needs to be taken into account. --M ASEM  (t) 19:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We do not worry about how the company wishes their product to be marketed... we follow common useage as shown by reliable sources. So... if Adobe Photoshop is commonly called simply "Photoshop" by reliable sources, I would agree that we should follow that useage and not include "Adobe" in the title.  And if Wii is commonly referred to as "Nintendo Wii" we should use that as our title.  The official name can be noted in the text of the article.
 * That said... We do have to be careful... a simple google search is going to turn up a lot of blogs, forums, and fan sites... ie non-reliable hits. This isn't a pure popularity contest.  We need to base our title on truely reliable sources.
 * If we do go with the unadorned Photoshopt, we should be aware that the term "Photoshop" is gaining some currency as a verb... and may end up being used to refer to any photo-manipulation process, regardless of the program used (the way "Xerox" now means using any photo-copier)... we might need to revisite our decision in a few years, to disambiguate the generic from the specific. We can deal with that when (and if) it happens. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in both cases, if you look at the marketing info and what expert sites for said products (PC software and graphic designers for Photoshop, professional game journalism sites and magazines for the Wii) they will generally follow the marketing name. It is only when you open it up to a wider selection of sources that are less reliable due the "wrong" version of the names start to appear.  Certainly in the case of PShop, the term "Photoshop" is more commonly stated than "Adobe Photoshop", but that's among all sources, the preference flips when you exclude blogs and the like. Common name should be the common name reflected in appropriate sources; otherwise we'd run into situations where something Jennifer Lopez would be actually at "J. Lo" simply due to which term is more popular among all sources verses a select set. --M ASEM  (t) 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But we are not intended for experts, who have better sources. We are intended for lay readers.


 * On the substance, it seems to me that general usage divides; "Adobe Acrobat", but "Photoshop". Probably the fact that acrobat is ambiguous, but Photoshop only means a program, has something to do with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh: it's the endless self-identification debate, applied to another subject.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Question on case
I was in the midst of a disagreement on letter case for an article name and I am looking for an expert opinion.

The issue is regarding the title of an article on a geographical location (i.e. a specific place, not a generic geographical term). My thinking is that whatever name is chosen for the article is by definition a proper noun and, as such, all words in the title (excepting "of" and such) must be capitalized, regardless of what capitalization is applied by any particular sources. Other editors have argued that if we are writing an article about an area that is not formally recognized by any government, then only portions of the article name that are formally recognized should be capitalized with all other portions of the name lower case. So taking an arbitrary example, if I wrote an article about the area around Vostok Station, Antartica (assume for a moment that is actually notable), would I name this Vostok Station Area or Vostok Station area?

Thanks in advance.

--Mcorazao (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC) For a parallel, consider the London Area Control Centre, for air traffic control. It describes itself as controlling the London and south-east area. That's idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow the usage of your sources (with due caution; if they are badly translated from the Russian in other respects, they may not do capitalization well either).
 * If that's not helpful, I would lower-case, unless somebody has declared a Vostok Station Area with specific boundaries and an administrative body of its own - and the article is about that administration.
 * Without that, it's not a proper name; it's a description with a proper adjective.


 * BTW, thank you. I changed my vote in this discussion as a result of your feedback (that discussion is much more broad but the issue of case did come up). --Mcorazao (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials
An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy or guideline?
It may be a bit early to discuss this, but the ideas in General Principles suggest to me that Article titles may not a standalone policy in the sense that it does not contain any original principles that are not already included in other content policies. In fact, by suspicion leads me to think that this policy would actually be better dealt with as part of the general notability guideline, based on the argument that the inclusion criteria for a topic as a standalone article are closely linked to the choice of title for that topic. Perhaps my logic is missing something? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy for it to be a guideline rather than a policy, but I think it deals with a quite distinct topic from notability.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that? It seems to me that article topics and article names are a like the Chicken or the egg, in that you can't include one without having the other, but perhaps I am mistaken in this view. Why do you think they are distinct? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, you can't have an article without a title or a title without an article, but the question of whether a subject is notable enough to have an article and the question of what to title an article on a given subject would seem to be separate ones.--Kotniski (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line question for me is, what unique principle does this policy set out? If the key principles are verifibility, neutral point of view and no original research, what does this policy offer that does not originate from another policy or guideline? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gavin, I think you might have had a point before we renamed the policy and shifted from talking about NAMEs to talking about TITLEs. There is some overlap between a topic's name and the topic itself (and thus the topic's notability).  In fact, it was this overlap that we were trying to address when we renamed this policy.  We wanted to distinguish between an article's title and the topic's "Name" (and thus distinguish between the article title and the topic itself)... we wanted to make it clearer that Article Title is not the same thing as the Topic's Name or the Topic itself.
 * "As for how this all relates to notability... I think notability comes first in the decision making process... first we determine whether the topic is notable... then we worry about what the best title for the article about that topic is.
 * Think of it in the other direction and it becomes even clearer... if a topic isn't notable, we should not have an article about it... and if we don't have an article, we don't need a title for it. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on all these points. Going back to my earlier suspicions, if we don't have an article, in which case we don't need a title for it, does that not suggest that this is not a policy per se, but an offshoot of the notability guideline? I am not trying to make a particular point, but it seems to me a key to understanding the issue of article titles is how it sits relative to the other content policies in terms of unique principles.
 * I don't think this is an "off shoot" of the notability guideline. Yes there is a minor connection between this and NOTE (it relates to other issues as well... such as NPOV and NOR... in fact, if it is an "off shoot" of anything it is an "off shoot" of WP:NPOV) but I think it stands on its own in dealing with a unique aspect of Wikipedia (how to choose titles for our articles).  It is similar in this respect to WP:FRINGE... that policy is heavily tied to NOTE as well as other policy/guideline pages... but because it focuses on a unique aspect of Wikipedia (articles on fringe theories) it stands on its own.
 * We can certainly discuss whether this page should be a guideline instead of a policy (I am very open to that discussion), but I think your reasoning on why it should be depreciated is off base.  This policy (or guideline) deals with a distinct issue that has nothing to do with notability.  How we title an article really has nothing to do with whether the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at your argument in relation to other policy pages and you will see the flaw... By your logic, NPOV would be a guideline under NOTE, because if there is no article, then there is no need to be neutral. Same with WP:V... no need for verification. All our policies interact with each other... the issue is whether they explain a unique aspect of editing Wikipeida.  Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not seeking to depreciate this policy, because I see its importance to be very high. But if this policy is distinct or unique, how does it stake its claim to be so? For instance, my view is that WP:FRINGE is really a subset of WP:UNDUE, as its purpose and principles are set out (more or less) in other content policies. As regards this policy, my suspicion remains: if there is a distinct and unique principle which says "article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources", how is this unique or distinct from other policies and guidelines other than its focus on titles? What is the mechanism that makes it work? It seems to me that either there are two possible approaches:
 * Define what form an article title should not take, e.g. an article title is not ambigious, a principle that seems to be unique to this policy;
 * Define how article titles out to be with reference to Wikipedia's content policy, e.g. verifiable, neutral, not a synethesis, an appoach similar to notability.
 * The reason I ask is not simply to flog a dead horse, but to understand if an article title is something independently arrived at, or is it determined by reference to the content of the article. Just to be clear what I am seeking to achieve: if we can establish a generally agreed answer to this question, then this would tend to promote or demote the approach I have suggested in the General Principles above.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah... I think I understand what you are asking... The problem is that we need to approach article titling from both directions and discuss both aspects of article titling... we need to discuss the form an article title should and should not take, and we need to discuss how to determine what the best title is. At the moment we kind of jumble it all together ... but it would be clearer if we discussed these topics in separate sections. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that WP:Notability has enough problems on its own that a merge proposal, or even any explicit connection between "Should Wikipedia have an article about whoever the previous president of the United States of America was?" and "Shall we title this article 'W' or 'Bush the Second' or 'George W Bush'?" is a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A page name is not content, so the content policies do not directly affect the name of a page. That this page does not appear to be a "standalone policy in the sense that it does not contain any original principles" is because some editors have worked hard over the last few years to integrate theis policy into the general structure of Wikipedia. For example until June 2008 the use of reliable sources was not included in this page, because this page pre-dates most of the other policy pages. Once that was included much of the rest fell into place, because before that simple concept was introduced many naming guidelines were over complicated attempts to express that concept through rules to make sure that the name used in reliable sources were used even when the common name was not the same. -- PBS (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article's title is not content, then what is it? Formatting?
 * Look at it from another angle: If a page is moved to "John Smith is an idiot" or "Pack of money-grubbing lies by pharma companies", then would you reasonably expect editors to cite content policies in changing it back to "John Smith" or "Pharmacology"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We really need to distinguish between terms in this discussion. Because these distinctions makes all the difference.  Take our article on Bill Clinton as an example.  As I see it...
 * The "page name" is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
 * The "article title" is: Bill Clinton
 * I would agree that the "page name" is not content... but the "article title" is content. However, it is a distinct form of content.  Our content policies apply... but in a unique way that needs to be discussed separately. Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What ever one wishes to describe it as, it is distinct from the content of an article. Although we have rules that tie the two two together they are distinct. And no WhatamIdoing I would expect people to use this page to change it back to the former name, not the content policies. Indeed changing a page name is often done so that content can then be altered, so usually (but not always) content follows title not the other way around. -- PBS (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This page should remain a policy for the practical argument that without it being a policy other policies such as consensus and IAR would tie the hands of administrators over at WP:RM when a group of muppets insist that the name they have chosen must be used even when it is not supported by this page. At a slightly more abstract level: If this is only a guideline, it has no more authority than the other naming guidelines, in which case "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world". -- PBS (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apocalypse? Doesn't that invoke some sort of super-Godwin's Law? My view is that policies state fundamental, non-negotiable facts of Wikipedia. Guidelines give merely guidance. I think the one fundamental fact of naming is that we follow usage in reliable sources; or rather, we follow usage in those reliable sources that share with us certain values, most importantly neutrality. This page doesn't really state that. Instead it gives a lot of guidance that amounts to much the same thing, but is both more specific and more wishy-washy. Therefore I would say this is a guideline, not a policy. But I am sympathic to PBS' concerns about how a demotion to guideline would be wielded. Hesperian 04:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ".... This page doesn't really state that"... huh? Isn't that exactly what WP:COMMONNAME is saying? Blueboar (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One does not expect to find a fundamental, non-negotiable, overarching principle, first mentioned in the second section after the lead. Hesperian 04:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal view of policies is not supported by either WP:Policies and guidelines or general practice, which is far more complicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you say so, WhatamIdoing. It remains my personal view. Hesperian 05:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your view is rational and desirable; it just doesn't happen to be the community's view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Up until the last last few months of last year the first section of this page (and before that it was in the the lead) contained a statement along the lines that Hesperian is alluding to. I am still not sure that there is agreement to move away from that. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

article titles and their colors
I'm sad to not know the answer to this and even sadder that I can't seem to find the answer...can anyone tell me the meaning of different colors used for article titles (if any)? For example...the article for Hera has a blue title, while the article for Juno has a rust-colored title. I've noticed a variety of colors - purple, green, cyan, etc...and black, which seems to be reserved for all Wikipedia guideline pages. I was assuming that the color corresponded with the class of the article (Good = green; list = purple), until I found quite a few exceptions. Is there a method to this madness? ocrasaroon |  blah blah blah  05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They both show up as black for me... links in blue. (When linking blue means there is an article while red indicates no article.) Blueboar (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the question is about the colors used in the infoboxes. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah... then no, the colors don't mean anything as far as I know. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect the disgustingly sickly Love Cabal with its yeucky love hearts is behind the different colors if you have a look at the psychadelic signatures on their page. :) Dmcq (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way if colors are of interest to you theres a discussion currently at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research and there's a guideline at WP:COLOR. Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe OP was referring to the color coding of article titles according to assessment, which is an interface option. See User:Pyrospirit/metadata.Synchronism (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Majority or preponderance of sources?
I seemed to have noticed a possible discrepancy in this policy's wording. It says: To me, the "most common" means the one used most often, i.e. a preponderance of reliable sources. Later it says: Here it says "significant majority" which is pretty self-explanation.
 * Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article.
 * When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources

So, I would like some clarification. To determine an article's title, do we need a preponderance or majority? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you do need a preponderance or a majority. :>)
 * OK, to be serious, I don't think that we have reached firm consensus on this issue, because everytime we started to discuss it, we kept getting side tracked by the endless 'self ID' debate. Personally, I think it is a bit of both, depending on how contentious the discussion over the title is.  In a non-contentious discussion a simple preponderance may be enough to decide between two or three equally acceptable titles.  But when things are contentious, I think you need more.  How much more is a harder issue to quantify... after all, where does preponderance end and "significant majority" begin? Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, article titles are only normally determined this way. :>) Dmcq (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Darn, I was hoping for a straight, simple answer. Yes, it's a contentious issue.  In fact, it might be the most controversial article on Wikipedia right now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me guess... Climatic Research Unit hacking incident? In my opinion it should be at "Climategate", as that is what is resoundingly used in the media and the most likely title to be searched for... but I do understand that there is a clear consensus against that title. This opposition leaves us inventing a "unique to Wikipedia" title, and all the POV debates that go along with doing so.  Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bingo. It's a very frustrating situation.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As someone who was intimately involved in writing both this policy and WP:NPOV, I know both the letter and more importantly the intent of the relevant policy statements. As such, I have left a comment at the article talk page outlining my views as to how both the letter and intent of our policies should be applied in this case.  My call... if we follow both the letter and the intent of our policies, then that article should be titled "Climategate"... However, I also think that there is enough of a consensus against using "Climategate" that an invocation of WP:IAR would be justified. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not altogether happy with the change to the descriptive titles section. There is also a convention of just going by the most common name when an event is history but being more careful about neutral phrasing of titles for recent controversies. Dmcq (talk)


 * I am not that happy with my edit either (so feel free to revert)... what I am trying to grope for is some explanation of when to use an existing proper name and when to create a descriptive title.  The point I am trying to make is that we should follow the sources...  when there is already a widely used name for something (as demonstrated by usage in reliable sources), we should use that name as our title, even if it is considered non-neutral ... we should not make up a descriptive title to use instead.  On the other hand, we do want names that are neutral if possible.  The hard part is expressing where that line is... in the "Attorneygate" example, the name was coined and used... but not used widely enough.
 * As for the history vs. recent controversies distinction... when does something shift from being a "recent controversy" to being "history"? Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted myself... but we should think on this a bit further. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That Climategate example is a good test point. It probably is the more common name in newspapers but it would imply Wikipedia was taking a partisan view on a current controversy and lead to far worse trouble than what's there. It would be bad for the development of whkipedia as an encyclopaedia to insist on it when it can just be used in a redirect anyway and so I'd agree with IAR to not use it even if it was the policy here. Dmcq (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But isn't the intent (and wording) of WP:NPOV about editorial neutrality? The world gets to decide and we simply report back what they've decided.  So if the world adopts a partisan term as the common name, we're not supposed to overrule them.  We're not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources.  There are plenty of POV article titles that are legit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the question isn't it... is it partisan to use a term that has gained common usage? and conversely is there a point where it becomes partisan to not use it? I think both are answered with "yes"... What we need to figure out is where that point is.  Not easy. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus isn't the same as majority vote. The purpose of wikipedia is to develop an encyclopaedia and if the title of an article is deeply offensive to one side that will work against the aim of wikipedia. Putting in what might be the majority title as seen in newspapers would very easily lead to the rest of the article being rubbish and wikipedia itself getting into trouble by seen as partisan by people. Having a redirect from a contentious name to a neutral name and saying about the contentious name in the article gets round that problem. There is no need to encourage a battleground mentality where one side gets a majority vote and crushes the other. The problem with a title is that it can't show all sides of a controversy in due proportion and therefore what's said in NPOV can't be applied strictly to titles, the best that can be done is to show the majority title when that's not going to cxause too much trouble or otherwise choose something neutral. Dmcq (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this hands every group who feels their Sacred Cause is being dissed by common English usage a veto; by this reasoning, we can't use Kiev lest we be contentious with the Ukrainian nationalists, and we can't have any title for the Republic of Macedonia at all: to the extremists on one side, any name other than Macedonia is unacceptable; to the extremists on the other side, anything which contains Macedonia is unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not every question has a clean answer, disputes between countries over names and territories are so common there's special rules covering most of them. And even then I think the rules have probably been broken for Derry, or should it be Londonderry or Derry/Londonderry or Stroke City. In any case there isn't a good neutral name one could use in such cases so this wouldn't apply. Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether a 'preponderance' or 'majority' is the right answer depends in part on how many names are used by the sources. If you have eleven names used each by just 5% of sources, and one name used by 45% of sources, you'd hardly want to skip the (by far) most common name simply because it wasn't used in 50.1% of sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For an interesting look at how events are named... check out Naming the American Civil War. I note that in our article on that event, we do follow the preponderance of the sources and title the article on the event American Civil War, (and not any of the less used options) ... and note, there are people who strong opinion on this. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At least there are good history books about it to refer to. I'd have thought the Arab-Isreali conflict would be more relevant. Part of it is old enough to have history books, should those bits still count as part of a current controversy or should one insist on using whatever seems most common in history books? And should one consider the history books may well be biased to the side which has more English speakers? Dmcq (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * should one consider the history books may well be biased to the side which has more English speakers? Good history books aren't; but on titles, this is essentially an objection to this English Wikipedia being anglophone, as it is intended to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A different area I can see problems arising is with trademark names becoming generic but the owner still defending their property. I don't think it is Wikipedia's place to go around destroying trademarks. Dmcq (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How about: A descriptive title may be used for a currently unfolding topic within a controversy to ensure it reflects a neutral point of view. If the topic is historical rather than current then its title may be changed to the name that would otherwise be used even if the controversy is still current. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Subject Conventions
I have tweaked this language slightly, since it is being abused. If we had meant to say: every subject convention must prefer the most common English usage, we would have said so. The old wording is being used to imply that doctrine in two separate discussions, which means that it needs modification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson


 * I don't object to a clarification, but the reason you gave is usually less important to the authors of those naming conventions than precision and accuracy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on the convention. In some conventions, we are choosing among equally precise forms for consistency and conciseness; whether we say James I of England or James VI of Scotland and I of England and Ireland, there's still only one of him. But I've added precision, as relevant to some, but not all, Flora issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive disambiguation
One of the older rules in naming articles has been that we should not use pre-emptive disambiguation, presumably because it clashes with precision. However as far as I can tell WP:D does not prohibit it and WP:AT is silent on the issue -- or at least there is no explicit mention of it, and the current wording could be interpreted either way.

In the discussion Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Workshop and in the Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions the arguments were based on Naming conventions (television) which explicitly said, and still says
 * "When additional precision for disambiguation is not required, do not disambiguate the name in the title of the article"

However there are times when pre-emptive disambiguation saves editors a lot of time and effort and aids reader by making links less likely to be wrong. One example were this was adopted with with numerical military units, as one did not have to be a military historian to realise that many armies have or had a 10th Division. By making the name of division predictable "number, division (state)" it was possible for someone to write an article that mentioned a nation's 10th division and link to the appropriate name, even if at that time the article on that nations 10th division had not been written and so provide a red link to say one was needed.

Another place were we have pre-emptive disambiguation is on the article titles of places in the United States, this came about first of all because many of them were bot created, but it proved useful, firstly because the Americans are used to saying "town, state" as in Birmingham, Alabama, and it meant for other English speaking nations where that habit is less common, that there was less need to disambiguate article names for towns like Birmingham. As many US towns have been named after towns in other countries, this pre-emptive disambiguation has helped a large tranche of the Wikiepdia project names remain relatively stable and to change it now would have a large impact on Wikipedia article title throughout the the geographical area not just those places in United States region. I do think however it helped that an adjustment was made for the most famous couple of dozen US cities such as Boston that were move by acknowledging the usage of the AP Stylebook as an WP:IAR piece of common sense.

The wording in this draft proposal suggests
 * "However, in some fields where ambiguity is very common, article titles are pre-emptively disambiguated—that is, all articles are given a disambiguation suffix, whether ambiguous or not—in order to simplify linking."

I think this issue needs further discussion. Perhaps it is an area where there should be a general rule in the AT policy that pre-emptive disambiguation should not be used, but in some areas where ambiguity is very common, guidelines my advises pre-emptive disambiguation of article titles. What do others think? -- PBS (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I dislike pre-emptive disambiguation, but it is endemic in geographic articles. I've tried several times to get it overturned on Australian places, and gotten absolutely nowhere. This would be an very hard battle to win. I doubt it is worth fighting. Hesperian 10:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably so, but we could at least try. The sad thing is that "preemptive disambiguation" is justified by a desire for consistency, whereas in fact, since it causes the articles in those particular subject areas to be treated differently from those everywhere else in Wikipedia, it actually leads to inconsistency on a wider scale.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In Australia we have the further inconsistency of pre-disambiguating localities using the comma convention, but disambiguating geographic locations only when necessary, using the parentheses convention. This puts us in the situation of having to have Margaret River the town at Margaret River, Western Australia and Margaret River the river at Margaret River (Western Australia)! We are constantly having to stop newbs from pre-disambiguating localities, disambiguating geographic places using the comma convention, etcetera. However anyone could come up with something as messy as this in the name of consistency is beyond me. Yet it enjoys wide support, including many of the most outspoken and influential Australian editors. Hesperian 11:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an advantage of the American convention; we don't have that problem. If an American municipality is created, or changes name, we give it City, State automatically. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we want to encourage or endorse predisambiguation under any circumstances. If editors choose to go that route, they should be invoking WP:IAR.
 * In medicine-related articles, we occasionally see inexperienced editors trying to pre-dab entirely unique names. They seem to think that "Exceedingly rare disease (genetic disease)" is a better name than just plain "Exceedingly rare disease".  The usual argument is that a longer title means that people don't need to read the article to find out what it is.  I wouldn't wish to have any support for that practice here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When we anticipate that articles will need disambiguation, and the absence of present conflict is only a function of the incompleteness of the encyclopedia, it is only reasonable to put the article where it will eventually go anyway. This also offers the advantages of a consistent naming system, discussed in the section above. Where ambiguity is not anticipated, and there is no system, then it should be discouraged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But then you get inconsistency at the (inevitable) boundaries between those sets of articles which "have a system" (i.e. happened to get the attention of a particular systematizing group of editors at some point in Wikipedia's history) and sets which don't. So primary-topic US and Australian places have disambiguators where primary-topic European places don't; European monarchs have "of somewhere" added (no, this isn't common usage, at least not the way we do it) where Asian monarchs and European presidents don't. --Kotniski (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try reading histories. It is not the most common usage, which would be simple name and Roman numeral, but that would be massively redundant; it is a common usage, normally employed when introducing a king from any coutnry the author doesn't happen to be discussing at the moment. (Except when a king is uniquely known by an epithet, and even then Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden is not unknown; the reader may need a reminder. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But "we anticipate that articles will need disambiguation" is not an accurate description of situations where predisambiguation is occurring. With respect to Australian geography, I've always felt I firmly debunked that notion here, but of course this place has no corporate memory, so no myth remains debunked for long. Hesperian 23:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And if this policy, or any policy, is being misapplied, have a word with the current offenders, and mention the problem here. I would have no objection to writing in conditions on when predabbing is to be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussing weight in criteria
To some degree, the above discussions all center on the concept of how much weight to give our different criteria (Recognizably, Precision, Consistency, etc) when titling an article. I think we are in agreement that WP:COMMONNAME (ie Recognizably) should be given the most weight, but does not "over rule" the others. I think we are in agreement that Consistency should be given the least weight (in that it can be over done). If I am correct, then perhaps we should express this concept of a difference in weight in the policy? Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No; COMMONNAME can certainly be overdone; every nationalist who can contrive a search result in which the Foolander name gets 27% and the Barlandish name 26% trots it out now. Adding a sentence which enshrines CN will only make this worse.


 * Nor does Recognizability require "the most common name"; logically, it requires a common name. Otherwise Liriodendron is indefensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that these criteria can be abused...and we do want to be careful how we phrase things to limit that abuse. I think we already at least hint that more weight should be given to Recognizably than on the other criteria (certainly we put more emphasis on it).  I was just wondering if we should make it more explicit. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency March 2010
See Consistency 4 to 20 December 2009 and Consistency December 20

I am reverting PMA's changes because I think they are controversial, and should be discussed. I do not think that consistency should be used to justify ignoring the usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor do I, but the community's effective position is different from what we would like - I thought PMA's change led to a better description of the reality.--Kotniski (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Nor did I say anything to justify ignoring reliable sources; the conventions, however, do in fact choose among the usages in reliable sources. Both "Joshua tree" and Yucca brevifolia are found in reliable sources; the question of which to use does in fact depend on issues (the alleged greater precision of the Latin name; consistency in using Latin names) beyond which of the common forms is most common.


 * Note for Hesperian: I have intentionally chosen an example where the common name is coterminous with a botanical species; hence "alleged". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no indication that it is the wider communities position. Take one of the supporters of current wording in Flora, Hesperian, and then see his arguments on this page in  "My view is that policies state fundamental, non-negotiable facts of Wikipedia. Guidelines give merely guidance. I think the one fundamental fact of naming is that we follow usage in reliable sources; or rather, we follow usage in those reliable sources that share with us certain values, most importantly neutrality." Or his quote of PMA (who's edit I've reverted) "I can do no better than quote PMA above: No additional weight whatsoever.... If the sources are evenly split, go to our other considerations: ... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Hesperian 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)"
 * The problem is identified in WP:CONSENSUS
 * "Consensus among a limited group of editors, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right."
 * Which is a fair description of the problems with naming guidelines that do not conform with this policy, and I disagree with massaging this policy to accommodate guidelines that ignore the spirit of this policy because a "limited group of editors" have ownership of a guideline. It is the same problem that existed between WP:V and WP:RS before it was made explicit in WP:V that WP:V rules. -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Every naming guideline which I have ever seen complies with this policy. The limited groups which think otherwise are mostly clustered around a single issue, in which they wish the article to reflect their point of view, and will quote the first section of AT as though it were rules and not principles (at least those of its principles which support the world as they would wish it to be).


 * I except the group which consists of Philip Baird Shearer, which does indeed have a point in these discussions; I will do another draft, including an express mention that we are following reliable sources, and precision (as What recommends above). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Flora starts with "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following: [insert a rule set]" it does not start from the premise of using reliable sources to determine the name. Likewise WP:NCROY "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." Now I know the history of this page so I know why it developed the way it did (because common name used to often simply mean Google web hits) but since it has been agreed to us reliable sources to define the set of common names, much of the specific rules are redundant and both guidelines would be far better if they were simplified to work from reliable sources. Consistency is being used as a prop to support old decisions that were made in good faith but are now redundant. If both guidelines were deleted tomorrow morning, based on reliable sources and general guidelines like precision, I would guess that 95% of the current articles would still be at the same names. What they should be doing is starting from the premise of "Common names should be used for article titles where these are widely used and are unambiguous, BUT ... [use this guideline to decide on which choice of name to use as the article title]" which is how WP:NCASTRO a more recently developed guideline does it "Common names should be used for article names in preference to official names where these are widely used and are unambiguous." -- PBS (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip, I almost agree with you, but there are plenty out there who don't (see the people who vote "per WP:NCXXX" in naming discussions, without the slightest concern whether the name their pet convention gives is actually in common use). And I recall the last time we had an RfC on this matter, our side lost - more people were concerned with not seeing their favourite conventions compromised than with imposing a general common-name-based standard. If we're going to reach and demonstrate a new consensus, we need another widely publicized RfC, since this is an issue that concerns, well, every Wikipedia editor.--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reckon the result of the previous RfC was a backlash against a reading of COMMONNAME as "use the lowest-common-denominator name, the name most familiar to the man in the street, without regard to register, precision, accuracy, what reliable sources use, what our audience would expect, or anything else". That was bloody ridiculous. The one advantage of that tedious saga was that it honed many minds, one or two of which were even capable of changing!; and eventually, much much later, we ended up with a much better policy. I for one would be willing to work/advocate to bring WT:NC (flora) more explicitly into line with "Follow usage in reliable sources"; whereas I will continue to oppose bringing it into line with "Use the lowest-common-denominator name". Though I can't speak for the good people at WT:FLORA, I would not anticipate much opposition from that quarter. The birds people have simply adopted the convention used by reliable sources in their field, so you won't see much opposition from them either. I really think the time may be ripe for is to start tilting the scales towards usage in reliable sources, away from internal consistency. Hesperian 06:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I might be led to agree with PBS, except for his revert-warring. As a matter of general policy, I think the five considerations we identify are all important; only PBS holds that we must use "most common names" at all costs in accuracy, consistency, and brevity.


 * However, that is not the issue here. This mindless reversion does not change between a text which says or means "use most common names" and one which doesn't; neither does. Both say that conventions do in fact recommend something else from time to time (sometimes or occasionally, in the different versions, and should generally be followed when they do. One merely says it in Hesperian's archest prose, and is liable to be misunderstood.


 * If PBS had a suggestion for a clearer wording which gives more weight to the principles he considers important, I would very likely accept it; if he had modified the new text, I would have left it alone. Bit I have not altered this policy, I have merely made clearer what it already said. Revert-warring to produce or maintain confusion is disruptive and unhelpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

<--(edit clash) PMA I am responding to your comment in the history of the article. I have explained why I think that the wording you want to replace is better than the wording with which you are replacing it. If I have not made it clear enough then I can explain in more detail. But have a look at WP:NCROY as Kotniski and I have altered the lead. A similar change to the other delinquent guidelines would solve the problem, and probably, make the whole paragraph redundant. -- PBS (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That change was contrary to the clear wording of the first section of this policy; it also misstated the scope of WP:NCNT. It is doubtless true that if we made PBS God-King, we would solve many problems, in the same sense that they were to be solved in A Man for All Seasons:
 * More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
 * Roper Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
 * More Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?


 * This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?


 * But, fortunately, the position of God-King is already taken; and the current occupant has much less wish to cut down every policy in Wikipedia; so we will not see what winds will blow when one man's whim replaces consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PMA why the personal attacks? I am reverting and not altering the wording because the first thing we should do is agree what changes need to be made. If I make changes that you disagree with then we have instability. Much better to revert to version that has been there for some months and then see if we can agree on some wording. "the most common form of the common name" what does that mean? I disagree with the wording "usually for the sake of precision, or of consistency with other titles in the same domain". If it were only for precision then we have a guideline for that, I have real problems with consistency as it is inherently conservative, and can easily clash with the usage in reliable sources, particularly if previous decisions have been made either ignoring the guidance given in the naming policy of guidelines, or were made using guidelines that gave advise contrary to the current policy's wording.


 * "This is particularly common in domains where the most common name in reliable sources is usually ambiguous," The use of "common" again is possibly not the best, and what does "domain" mean? But that is minor in comparison to "most common name in reliable sources is usually ambiguous" that is certainly not true for flora (as in most cases the scientific name is the only reliably sourced name).


 * The only thing that is controversial with nobility, and flora, is that they are (or were when you introduced the change) rule based and not sourced based, so when the rules produce a name that is not supported by the majority of reliable sources (and the general guidelines like precision and disambiguation for further refinement), people argue that the rule derived name in those guidelines should be ignored in favour of the name used in reliable sources. If the rule set is altered so that it expands and explains the use in reliable sources in those areas and give guidance when the results from reliable sources are ambiguous or otherwise not clear, then the guidelines are not controversial, and is the case with nearly all the guidelines with a few exceptions. It is the exceptional guidelines that are the controversial ones, and if they are modified then there will be no need for the paragraph that starts "This practice of using specialized names ...".


 * If those few guidelines are bought into line then the wording of this section becomes much simpler:
 * "Wikipedia has a number of naming guidelines relating to specific areas (as listed in the box at the top of this page) these give guidance on how to title articles in those areas by supplementing and explaining this policy page. Policies take precedence over guidelines, so in the case of any inconsistency between this page and a guideline, this policy page has priority."
 * -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Except... we do say that when our various criteria conflict with each other editors should reach a consensus. In the case of the Flora project we have a conflict between common names (which people disagree over) and precision (everyone agrees on the scientific names).  So... the editors on the Flora project reached a consensus to follow precision over commonality for Flora articles.  In other words... consistency is already included in this policy... under the heading of consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the category of mis-quotations, WP:GUIDES actually says, "Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally [emphasis added] takes precedence" -- and this page is one of the reasons that it says "normally" rather than "always". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording you call a mis-quote, is a quote strait from WP:V. --PBS (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that WP:V badly paraphrases the policy that it cites as its authority does not turn WP:V's imprecise paraphrase into the actual rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You miss my point... consistency isn't a matter of policy vs guideline precedence... because the policy itself says to reach a consensus when there is a conflict between criteria. The various topic guidelines are merely statements of what the consensus is, as it relates to articles within a given topic area.  The guidelines don't over-rule the policy... they are based upon it. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Consistency has been added to this guideline fairly recently and as you know I think the current wording is a mistake, both for the reasons I have given previously and because it allows the sort of argument you are putting forward to support delinquent guidelines. Even so I am not sure how you come to the conclusion "So... the editors on the Flora project reached a consensus to follow precision over commonality for Flora articles." as WP:NC (flora) says: "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis". So they not using "precision" but rules to determine the name. If they were consistent then every article would use the scientific names. Like the previous wording in WP:NCNT "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." (my emphasis and I am amazed no one has reverted back to it), it tries to impose a set of rules which while they approximate to the general naming policies result in different names in some cases and it is those few cases that are contentious. With a change to the guideline to give advise on how to interpret specific problems in that area, the name of most articles would remain the same and a few would be different (how do I know that? See the talk page I ran a test on a set of names that had been moved by one editor who used the flora rules exclusively, and compared that with just using policy). We should not be wording this policy document to make it easier for a "limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot to override community consensus on a wider scale". -- PBS (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip... you're wikilawyering ... The word "consistency" may be a relatively recent addition (I will have to see when exactly it was added)... but some sort of statement saying essentially the same thing (ie if there is a project guideline follow it) has been part of this page for a long time.
 * But to be honest, I don't really care about how long or briefly it has been in the policy. Consensus can change, so the only question we need to ask is: should it be in the policy?  I am open on that issue, leaning towards "yes, it should".
 * As for the Flora articles, one last point... Have you considered that the Flora naming convention might be using the term "common name" with a different meaning than we do here... From my reading of that guideline, I suspect that they are using the term to mean: "the name used by non-specialists" (or "the name used by common people") as opposed to our meaning of: "the name most commonly found in reliable sources". In fact, there is an argument to be made that, since the vast majority of reliable botany texts will include the scientific name as well as one or more of various local non-scientific names used by common people .... then the scientific name actually is the most common name as found in reliable sources.  If this is the case, then the Flora guideline is actually supporting WP:COMMONNAME when it says to use the scientific name.  Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone who was involved in the framing of the flora naming convention, I can say that consistency was only a minor consideration. The main issue was a desire to use the nomenclature of our field; i.e. to follow usage in reliable sources. These priorities may not be inferrable from the written word of the policy, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I say again that I do not believe the flora people are as opposed (if at all) to following usage in reliable sources as they are to using the lowest-common-denominator name of the man in the street. Hesperian 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have put my money where my mouth is and overhauled the flora naming convention. If there are no objections, as I anticipate, then you can cross that off the list of "delinquent" guidelines. Hesperian 01:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've said recently in a recent and related discussion, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Consistency is here being used for essentially aesthetic reasons, rather than for the purpose for which this encyclopedia exists; that is, the reader. We don't name articles so that they all look "consistent"; rather, we name them in the way that is most beneficial for the reader. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right on... but the reader benefits from some consistency. Hesperian 01:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, in general consistency is helpful. But here it's being elevated into a primary goal - and, not incidentally, being used by PManderson to assist him in a different dispute. It's a terrible idea to modify policy so that editor aesthetics win out over reader-friendliness, and so that you can win a dispute, which is what is being done here. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Albuquerque, New_Mexico? --PBS (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On "It's a terrible idea to modify policy so that editor aesthetics win out over reader-friendliness", I'm pretty sure no-one here disagrees with you. There are two issues here:
 * Compared to the rest of us, PBS has a heightened sense of how wording can be abused, and tends to revert to the status quo if an edit isn't just right. His defense of such reverts is that the new version could be misused in such-and-such a way, but that does not mean that the author of the new version intended such a misuse.
 * Precisely, "unforeseen consequences" (probably because I'm tempted to use it that way >:-> )-- PBS (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Though we here mostly agree that editor convenience should not trump reader-friendliness, it remains indubitable fact that naming conventions like our styles and titles convention have strong community support despite producing hideous titles whose only merits are consistency. We therefore have to temper our prescriptive approach to make sure this policy remains descriptive of what Wikipedians actually do.
 * Hesperian 01:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I drafted the following then events in the physical world got in the way but even though the conversion has moved on a bit and I have not yet read Hesperians changes I think it still worth posting:

Yes BB, the use of common name had to be defined with a footnote in the guideline Naming conventions (common names) which is now included in the policy see WP:COMMONNAME. "but some sort of statement saying essentially the same thing (ie if there is a project guideline follow it) has been part of this page for a long time". There was an ambiguity in the wording, it depends on whether one read this to be the naming conventions page and the others were guidelines to the conventions, or if the guidelines were also naming conventions. Consistency was introduced with these two separate edits here to the nutshell and here to the body on 7 September 2009. If you look before that date there was no mention of consistency in the policy. Which is not surprising because it is contrary to consensus can change. As far as I know there was no previous agreement for its introduction. It seems to me that the edits were based on this draft proposal which was largely drafted by Hesperian that I believe was drafted to justify the wording of the Flora guideline and a concept first introduced into conversations on the flora talk pages on 2 December 8 and is further developed as There is more than one priority here. So not it has not been in the Naming conventions for very long and as can be seen has been rejected by a number of other editors.

Hesperian apart from user:Born2cycle (who is not a very active editor at the moment) I don't think anyone who has contributed to the debate on flora in the last two years has seriously suggested that "lowest-common-denominator name of the man in the street" be used. That was a concern before PMA added reliable sources to this policy, but since then the rule based structure to flora is an impediment not a help to using reliable sources to determine the name of articles. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Much better Hesperian. With an edit you have fixed my major complain about WP:NC (flora) and in my opinion turned it from a controversial guideline, into a guideline which while I might quibble with the details no longer contradicts this policy. Well done and thank you. -- PBS (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. There is a case for taking it further, but you of all people will agree that it is necessary to move slowly and cautiously on these issues. Well now, I believe the birds people, who, in mandating the use of standardised common name, are simply following the nomenclature of their field, might easily agree that they too are motivated by a desire to follow usage in reliable sources, rather than consistency-for-consistency's-sake. Little by little we are isolating the last of the "delinquents". :-) Hesperian 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that consistency has a value, but it's a recent (and obviously controversial) addition to the policy, and seems to be given undue weight here. Consistency is good, all other things being equal. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're preaching to the converted, Jayjg. We all agree on that. This dispute is about how prescriptive we should be, in the face of dreadful article titles like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Do we prescribe rules, and do we describe current practice? PBS leans more toward prescribing; PMA leans the other way. PMA makes a description more accurate, and PBS sees that him change the rules. PBS changes the rules back, and PMA seems him restore an inaccuracy. :-( Hesperian 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And that's policy: policies and guidelines describe.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But it may be useful to repeat to those who will listen: We are not discussing a change in the rules. This reversion did not change the substance of the guideline at all; it said before reversion that subject guidelines do not always use common names, and it said so afterwards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's what it looks like to me. Yet you must have had some reason for the edit. What was that? Hesperian 11:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Occasionally hedges too far; WP:FLORA quite often displaces the most common name. For example, consider North American trees: tulip tree, sugar maple, American sycamore are redirects, although the vernacular names are more common, much more recognizable, and equally precise. So with the other conventions. (I grant that this may depend on how you count; but often-consulted articles on well-known subjects should weigh more than stubs on algae. That's what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is all about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it is useful to suggest, as the section now does, that we should choose among common names. Henry IV of England, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom are commonly used, even if they are not as common as the (usually ambiguous) shorter common forms. Nicholas Sarkozy of France is not - largely because in the foreseeable future he will cease to be of France (insofar as he is) and return to his normal status as party politician. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency is not an aesthetic principle; that's smoke and mirrors - any aesthetic benefit is welcome but incidental. Consistency serves the reader, in two (overlapping) ways: a reader should be able to tell where an article is likely to be. Even Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom serves this puirpose; once a reader has seen George II of the United Kingdom, and Henry IV of England, he will expect the article where it is.

The second purpose is that we should not set the reader puzzles, especially when the answer is not obvious. Look at Category:Heads of state of Canada, or of New Zealand; if she is moved, the reader will be entitled to wonder why all the rest are of the United Kingdom amd she isn't. Is some obscure political point being made? (And in fact it is; our Canadian monarchists wish to claim that she is Queen of Canada in a different sense than Victoria was.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Note: I'm not a Canadian monarchist, so don't jump on me Pmanderson). Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada in a different sense to Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria did not reign over Canada with the title Queen of Canada (as QEII is) and nor did she reign with a separate Canadian Crown (as monarchs after the Statute of Westminster have), and she also did not reign over Canada as a fully independent nation (as Queen Elizabeth II has, following the Canadian Constitution Act 1982). Queen Victoria reigned over Canada first as several colonies of the British Empire, and following 1867 as a country which was part of the British Empire. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  06:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To the extent this argument is addressed at me, it is a red herring. I support leaving Liz where she is so long as we have the current royalty convention. But I think the current convention is a joke. As such, comparison with George and Harry are not relevant. Hesperian 06:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I never realised you were that much of a prescriptivist... But on PMA's "reader entitled to wonder" point - it is valid (so if it's right to move Liz, then it's probably also right to move at least her most immediate predecesssors), but it also works the other way - why do a few heads of state have "of somewhere" in their articles while others don't (not "Nicolas Sarkozy of France", or even "Akihito of Japan")? And why does this head of multiple states have just one of them mentioned in her title? A reader wondering these things might reasonably come to all sorts of wrong conclusions. This is what I mean (bottom of page) about attempts to force local consistency actually resulting in inconsistency pedia-wide.--Kotniski (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wow, I never realised you were that much of a prescriptivist..." Addressed at me? How so? Hesperian 12:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just that you say you support leaving Liz where she is "as long as we have the convention" - implying you think we must follow the rules even if the rules tell us to do something silly. Sorry if I misunderstood.--Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the convention as 'rules'. I see it as an articulation of the consensus of the people who actually work on these royalty articles. I support leaving Liz where she is because I don't support a bunch of know-nothing know-it-all policy wonks who don't actually work on these royalty articles (i.e. us) claiming that we know better than those who do work on them. The people who actually work on these articles are the people whose opinions really matter. If I can convince them their convention sucks, great. If I cannot convince them, I will not overrule them. Essentially I'm endorsing their right to thumb their nose at our policy if they are really so sure that our policy is not what works best in the field. More or less the opposite of how you read it. (But there's still no need to apologise.) Hesperian 13:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<--You may not see them as rules but until this weeks change in the lead the lead clearly stated that they are rules: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem" (my emphasis). This is a general encyclopaedia and names should be those which the general public would most easily recognise. It is often the case that experts are not the best to judge these things as they are members of a group and group often use words and phrases which are impenetrable to the uninitiated, (just as we do with initials on this page (AT NPOV etc)). -- PBS (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But we don't in fact do that as universally as PBS would make out. Liriodendron is not the most common name, much less the most common form - and yet it is consensus, and there is a mass of similar cases. (I join PBS in dissent, and will gladly consider adapting this page when consensus changes; but it hasn't.) Therefore, this policy should - as WP:GUIDES says - describe our actual practice, not figments of the handful of editors who discuss this page. If we do not in fact win the arguments, revert-warring to keep this page as a picture of a Wikipedia which never existed is playing Canute - and in the long run, discrediting those large portions of this page which are consensus. Therefore, I am stubbornly amending to say sometimes; it is harmful to have this page lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)