Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 37

Public Administration or Public administration?
Another editor and I disagree about whether Public Administration or Public administration should be the main article and the other a redirect. I assume the regulars here are intimately familiar with this section of the MOS so perhaps you can weigh in and help us settle the issue. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted because (a) it was a cut-and-paste move, and (b) per WP:CAPS, MOS:CAPS, etc. it seems pretty clear to me that it should not be capitalised. Jenks24 (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Algorithm for deciding titles
Given what's happening with algorithms today, the amount of resistance here to coming up with an algorithm for deciding article titles is disheartening.

link. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I know, and there are also algorithms that will write articles for you. Maybe we can leverage that to take up the slack as we lose humans from WP.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Born2 may be disheartened... but I'm not :>) ... I embrace the fact that article titles can't be done by algorithm. The simple fact is, article titles are created through consensus... and consensus is messy, often inconsistent, and definitely not something that can be broken down into an algorithm. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Blueboar. But then the algorithms B2C's reference seems to describe are along the lines of helping humans to make sense out of mountains of data and not the sort of turn-a-crank-and-out-pops-the-perfect-title sort of algorithm B2C seems to pine for. older ≠ wiser 23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Dick, algorithms cannot be created for writing articles. Not in any practical sense.  But algorithms can be easily created for deciding titles.  In fact, while none of our articles are written by algorithm, most of our titles are already decided by algorithm.  There is no comparison.


 * Blueboar, title decision making for controversial titles is currently messy because such titles are decided by consensus. But the vast majority are not messy because they're decided by algorithm.


 * We currently use the following algorithm to decide article titles, and most titles are determined by the first objective part:
 *  article topic clearly has a name that is most commonly used in reliable sources and that does not conflict with other uses, 
 * // Objective part
 * use most common name of topic as article title
 * 
 * // Subjective part
 * Apply WP:AT and WP:D as best as you can.
 * // Messy consensus part
 *  conflict DecideByConsensus 
 * <tt></tt>


 * The more comprehensive we make the algorithm, the larger percentage of titles that can be decided by objective algorithm rather than by messy subjective consensus. Why is there resistance to this?  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

multiple titles
This may have been discussed before, but why does wp software not support multiple titles for articles? This would reduce the discussions and resources that now go into RM. It would also serve more various audiences. Here is how it could work: We now use several redirects already. If there is more than one acceptable title for an article then they could be added in the very beginning of the article in a hidden template like. When somebody searches for an article on one of the alternative titles, or accesses the page through a redirect, then render the article with the title of their own choice. Of course, redirects we make for common typos should not be used as alternative titles. So an "alternative title" would get rendered as the title of the article only if it is listed in the "alttitles" template. An additional benefit would be that for example even Cyrillic or Chinese names can be added in the alttitles list, and when a person comes to wp looking up that name, then he would see that name as the title of the article. Right now our titling policy states that we put the interests of a general audience before those of specialists. With this suggestion we could serve both the general audience AND the specialists. Everybody happy. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In some ways, we already support multiple titles... see Redirect. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this idea would take it one step further: display the name used in the redirect as the title of the page (provided it was not a redirect made for a common typo). Let's take our article about Munich, why not display "München" as the title of the article whenever somebody visits the page through this redirect: München, or when somebody came to search wp for "München"? What is the need to push just one of the alternative names as the title? It wouldn't take much change in the wp software code to do this. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem a great idea to me. If we constantly use "Munich" in the article in question, why should we display "München" or something else as the title? I think this would be likely to confuse the reader unnecessarily. mge o  talk 21:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? Alternative renderings of the name are normally mentioned or listed in the lede of the article anyway. Readers will understand that only one of those names can be used in the text (although I have seen articles where different sections use different alternative name depending on the context). This is not a print encyclopedia, which means that we have more flexibility in how we render the article before it is sent to the reader. It can be more customized. To customize the title according to the reader's search would take no more than a few lines of code. So, why not do it? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree: this is one of those good ideas that should not be implemented. With some exceptions, there should be one name used primarily throughout the article; the first paragraph should give major alternative names and if necessary alternative names should be explained. Anything else is confusing. Proper implementation would probably not be easy. --Boson (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And it breaks the wiki model, where every title is just a text file. You no longer have the ability to click "edit" on any redirect and write up an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If the redirect is from a misspelling, would you really want that as the title? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It already says " (Redirected from München)", although the fine print could be made bigger. Art LaPella (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, on a second thought, this could be an interesting option in case we have several English equivalent names (like "colour" and "color", "organisation" and "organization" and so on). In this case I guess there wouldn't be any confusion among the readers. But IMHO it shouldn't be used for cases like "Munich" and "München" because these are not strictly equivalent (i.e. "Munich" is standard English, "München" is not). mge o  talk 00:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should 'common name' be used to title articles incorrectly
Should the common name be used for an article even when that name is wrong? This follows on from Talk:Boleyn Ground which also makes a nice example. In this instance the name "Upton Park" is not the name of the stadium even if it is, undoubtedly, the common name. Dpmuk (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support allowing the correct name. My reasoning here is that the purpose of common name is to cause the reader least surprise.  Using the example, yes, when the reader first arrives at the page they are going to be more surprised by the article being titled Boleyn Ground but in the longer term I feel they would be more surprised by an encyclopaedia having an article at an incorrect title.  I also think it could harm the reputation of wikipedia to have articles at incorrect titles.  Additionally the purpose of encyclopaedia, including Wikipedia, is to spread knowledge and by using an incorrect title I think we could be helping to spread inaccurate knowledge that seems to go against that greater purpose.  I also note that cases like this are different from any of the current examples given, this is not the difference between a technical name and a common name (e.g. Guinea pig), a shortened or different version of a name (e.g. Bill Clinton) or a stage name (e.g. Hulk Hogan).  I have also seen more and more people saying at requested moves that we should use the correct name but they usually lose out to blind adherence to common name, hence the reason I started this RfC.  I think that cases such as these were the common name is wrong should be treated on a case-by-case basis, rather than by blind adherence to common name, and that a statement to that affect should be added to this policy. Dpmuk (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The flaw with the proposal is in the assumption that one name is "correct" while another is not. This is not the case. One name may be the official name and another an unofficial name, but if both names are used in sources, both names are "correct". See: WP:Official name for more on this.   Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither the subject header or the RfC wording is neutral - just thought I'd point that out. I'm not yet commenting on the issue. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Agreed. This RfC should be immediately closed and a new one with neutral wording opened when sufficient time has passed that this one is unlikely to have affected opinions about a new one. Dpmuk, you should be ashamed of yourself for poisoning the well and putting forth a sham process to gain support for your position. ElKevbo (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see no reason why a football stadium could not have a nickname, and if that nickname overtakes the "official name" as the most commonly used name in reliable sources, then it can be used as the article title. The reader should not be confused about this, as all alternative names should be given in the lede anyway. Of course there have to be redirects from these alternative names. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I've closed it as I can see how the title could be misconstrued. Will write more in a minute. Dpmuk (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To expand on that, part of the issue here was that I was originally thinking of also including Sexually transmitted disease as an example, where at the RM I believe there was consensus that the title was, from a scientific point of view now wrong (and so incorrect) but I didn't as STD has undoubtedly previously been the correct name so has it's own problems as an example. As such I was thinking of "correct" in that context and I will admit to not seeing the possibility that people could interpret "incorrect" and "wrong" as incorrect from a wikipedia point of view which I were, with hindsight, I assume the complaint is.
 * In reply to specific people:
 * ElKevbo - what do you mean by "putting forth a sham process". For a start that doesn't seem like AGF and I'm not sure what you mean.
 * Blueboar - I'm aware of WP:Official names, which I note is only an essay.  I agree it has many valid points which is why I'm not arguing for the this across the board, merely that the possibility of misleading readers should be taken into account and common name not be blindly followed in these cases.  I suspect most readers would expect an encyclopedia to use official names and so the use of another name could be misleading.  In many cases such as a use of a stage name, shortened name etc the fact that it's not the official name is obvious.  In cases such as this it's less clear and I think that should be taken into consideration when naming an article.
 * MakeSense64 - I think you raise a valid point and as I say above that's why I'm not arguing for this across the board, only that things other than common name should be taken into consideration.
 * Dpmuk (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe all we need to know is that there can be two or three (nearly) equally "common" names for something, and the "official name" may be one of them. But that doesn't imply we chose the official name in such a case. We chose the alternative that best approaches the five "goals" stated in WP:CRITERIA. The "official name" will always be in the lede, and as far as "article titles" go wp basically choses the most "practical" name. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But I note there's no "correctness" in there. Should we still be using STD even though it would appear that consensus is that, scientifically, it's incorrect.  Maybe that's the root of what I'm getting at here - should we have a correctness criteria that should be considered rather than just common name.  I will accept that in the Upton Park example it could be argued that Upton Park is correct and if that is consensus fine but at the moment it suggests we should be using Upton Park regardless if it is the common name (ignoring for now the argument being made at the RM that it might not be the common name - something I never saw coming) and that there shouldn't even be the need for a discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to the recent changes on the policy page I also now see quite a lot of overlap with the discussion above. I hadn't realise that was discussing the same sort of area due to the heading being about phrasing rather than about the policy itself.  Dpmuk (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMONNAME is sound policy for a general encyclopedia. However, as generally understood and applied within WP, it has failings not entirely attributable to the Common name policy itself. Its first and probably greatest failing is the lack of consistent, replicatable methodology that indeed determines the common name of any topic. The current methodology as seen in many RMs is very ad hoc and loaded with the biases of the editors pushing one common name over another. Its second failing (not of its own making) is trying to equate common names with accurate or correct names. Correctness and especially accuracy demands a solid point of reference or ground truth if you will. When you introduce cultural, political, language and other biases into a discussion about accuracy or correctness (each editor will view something a being accurate only based on their view of what the real ground truth is), what is common to one editor is not to another. Common name does not care about accuracy or correctness, it cares only about what is most prevalent in all reliable sources, sources that have not been culled to selective remove or deal with the inherent cultural, political and language biases we face in the WP community. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

French ship ( )
I just stumbled upon an array of articles created by one editor with titles of the form "French ship ", e.g. French ship Sceptre (1780), French ship Redoutable (1791). This looks somewhat questionable to me, but I wanted to ask others for their opinion since I'm by no means an expert on naming conventions and the articles have existed for several years with those names. --195.14.199.196 (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If an name is the WP:COMMONNAME, it is accurate
Re: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."  If a name is the WP:COMMONNAME (ie used significantly more often that any other name), I contend that it is by definition "accurate" - usage makes it so. Thus. we should cut the words "or inaccurate" from the above sentence. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, your position already was clear. You've created a new section for the purpose of repeating yourself (without addressing arguments to the contrary).  —David Levy 23:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it will be more useful to continue the discussion in the earlier section, where it is still being discussed and where David Levy has brought useful new examples and input. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem... I will continue up there. My concern was that the discussion about "inaccurate" names got lost in the larger discussion of "ambiguous" names.  I see them as distinct issues and wanted to separate the two discussions. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable phrasing: Ambiguous or inaccurate

 * See also Archive 34: Ambiguous or inaccurate

I think this sentence in the Common names section should be improved or removed: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Problems: Thoughts? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "ambiguous names" - are already handled by disambiguation rules, so why avoid them?
 * "inaccurate names" - who or what decides that a certain name is "inaccurate"? We will need some objective definition for it, otherwise this phrasing paves the way for "improving on our sources".
 * "are often avoided" - how often? Better not to use weasel words in our policy pages.


 * When and how did this sentence slip into the policy? I don't remember any discussion of it (And I would have opposed if it had been discussed... the "inaccurate" part seems to conflict with WP:Official name, where we clearly say to favor a commonly used "inaccurate" name over the more "accurate" official name). Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... upon examination, it seems that it has been in the policy for quite a while... we just didn't see the conflict before. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. So, if ambiguous names are handled by our disambiguation rules and inaccurate names are not avoided if they are common, then we can as well delete this sentence to resolve the policy conflict per WP:POLCON. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed before (PMA moved it up from its position at the end) and I'll look for the previous discussion in a moment. But it evolves around the "as determined by reliable sources" not what Wikiepdia editors think are inaccurate or titles that are ambiguous because there is a dab page of similar names. -- PBS (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, it is basically a confusing phrasing. Reliable sources are needed to determine that other reliable sources are not reliable. And how is that not going to turn into a circular argument? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See Archive 34: Ambiguous or inaccurate, for the earlier discussion and where the phrase comes from. The example originally given was "tsunami ... over the ... less accurate tidal wave". (This popular usage changed since the big Indian Ocean tsunami, but go back before that and there were plenty of scientific articles which explained the difference, while many non scientific sources continued to use the term tidal wave). -- PBS (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Good to see that I am not alone in seeing problems with this phrasing. So basically it is trying to say this: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable academic/scientific sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable popular/media sources." Or maybe more simply: "More accurate names, as determined by reliable academic sources, can be preferred over the more common names found in reliable popular sources (e.g. media)". Is that correct? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a specific case, but it happens in other fields as well, for example the names of legislation, legal cases and other things. But care has to be taken in drafting it because otherwise we end up with pushers who say it should be the "Catholic Church/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints/Conservative and Unionist Party" etc, because that is the official name they use. Perhaps we need to limit it to "reliable third party source" and I don't think your wording makes it any clearer than it is now that we are specifically talking about "article titles described as inaccurate in authoritative third party sources" BTW there is a problem with "in" is that a source can also be the "creator of the work" (WP:RS), so I think this needs further discussion. -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ambiguous names, in the context of thus sentence, are not handled by WP:DAB pages. The point here is actually to avoid the need for dab pages by using more precise names (when possible) rather than confusingly ambiguous names.  This is about their real-world use, not about the number of articles with similar names in existence on the English Wikipedia.
 * For example, what's a heart attack? Most people mean a myocardial infarction, but some people use this word to mean benign heart palpitations, panic attacks, or other conditions.  Some of these conditions are equally serious:  cardiac arrest due to electrical shock is a "heart attack", but it's not a myocardial infarction.  The term is ambiguous, meaning that if someone says "I had a heart attack during the scary movie", you can't be certain in the real world which one of the various meanings the speaker intends.
 * And, in this instance, the confusing, ambiguous, imprecise nature of this term is amply documented in reliable sources, and we have taken their advice to reject the "ambiguous" real-world name in favor of the precise, equally real-world names for these multiple conditions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is basically a poorly worded reference to the "precision" criterium: "Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." and already explained very well in WP:PRECISE. Explaining the same thing in too many different places is what leads to confusion and policy conflicts. Why don't we replace this phrase with something more clear like: "If the most common name is too imprecise or ambiguous, then we may opt for a less common (but still common) alternative name." MakeSense64 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is not necessarily about precision it is about using the information in sources about the article title not about surveying the literature ourselves. It is rare that such information is available, but when it is it normally the determining factor in an RM discussion for the name that is selected as the article title. And it does not include the use of expert terms ("someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic"). Probably the best thing to do is to move the sentence back out of the paragraph reword it if necessary (like replacing "by reliable sources" with "in reliable sources" ), give WhatamIdoing's example, and keep out eyes open for another one that comes up at WP:RM.  -- PBS (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. So it's now pretty clear that the current phrasing is rather confusing and open to various interpretations, which are not necessarily in line with the original intention. Afaiks the confusion comes from "by reliable sources" appearing twice in the same sentence, while it is not about the same "reliable sources". It is about "more authoritative reliable sources" contending that a certain name found more commonly in "all reliable sources" is inaccurate or ambiguous for a given topic. In that case we may decide to follow the information in these "more authoritative reliable sources" and opt for the more accurate name.
 * Looking into @WhatamIdoing's example I am not quite sure this is a good example. Right now Heart attack redirects to Myocardial infarction. But if what he says is right then that shouldn't be. We should have an article at Heart attack explaining that there are various conditions that may be referred to as "heart attack" on the basis of these "more authoritative reliable sources" who say so. The imprecise nature of this term as amply documented in reliable sources, that can make for a good and useful article. Letting Heart attack redirect to Myocardial infarction only reinforces the wrong view that they are the same.
 * And this makes me wonder whether we need this phrase after all. If we have ample reliable sources stating that a certain common term is inaccurate and why, then we have ample sources to create an article for that inaccurate term. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy for your idea, of course, but I believe that Heart attack redirects where it does because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Most readers who want to know about heart attacks are looking for information about cardiac problems caused by blocked blood vessels, that is, myocardial infarction.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, how nicely we obey our "rules", don't we? Anyway, I am happy you brought up this heart attack example and have now taken it here Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. We will see if there are more editors who have sympathy for the idea. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Misuse
The phrase in question is now also misused in RM discussions as you can see in this edit: Editor(s) try to reject anglicized or conventional English names as "inaccurate" and quote this particular phrase, even though that has clearly never been the intention of this phrase. Then you get more votes per "accurate name", and it means articles get moved against our policy. So I think we should implement the earlier suggestion and add a clear example for what this sentence actually means (e.g. heart attack). To stop misinterpretation we can also add a phrase stating that: "Common names should not be considered "inaccurate" just because they do not follow native spelling." Does anybody object? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Debates over which name is more "accurate" can often be settled by pointing to WP:Official name... the native spelling (ie with diacritics) can be considered the person's "Official name"... which is not necessarily the name that we use as a title. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added the heart attack example as an explanatory footnote.
 * It's not clear to me that a similar footnote would be as useful for the diacritics problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see your edit has been reverted already. And it makes me wonder: if we have so much trouble to find and agree on a good example for this phrase, then what is "often" doing in that sentence? If this happens often we should find examples easily.
 * What is the actual need for this phrase, when we already have a "precise" criteria that makes it clear that a title needs to be "precise enough" to identify the topic. It is redundant and only creates confusion and misuse of this sentence. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should revert the revert as the editor who made it does not seem to be taking part in this discussion, and those that do seem to be broadly in agreement. MS64 remember above we talked about where this sentence came from and that it is to do with what is said in reliable sources about accuracy and not the precision that is meant by this precision as choice for article titles made by Wikipedia editors. -- PBS (talk)
 * Yes, I remember what we discussed. But we cannot deny that "accurate" and "precise" are pretty much synonymous, so the phrasing easily creates confusion. Imo, the contention that a given term is "not precise enough" to serve as an article title, can either come on the basis of common sense, or because we have reliable sources contending that the term in question is inaccurate or ambiguous. Is there any need to spell out the latter case in a confusing sentence, while we struggle to find good examples for this exception? Anyway, I see that Blueboar has simplified the sentence and it looks now more clearly worded. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We most certainly can deny that accuracy and precision are the same! They are really very different.  "The Sun is about 100 million miles away from the Earth" is accurate and imprecise.  "The Sun is 36.42249249 inches away from the Earth" is inaccurate but very precise.
 * I think that the example should be restored. If Noetica wants to contest it, then Noetica can show up on the talk page and explain how zero objections here, in a discussion that lasted a couple of weeks, indicates widespread disagreement.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * After waiting a couple of weeks for Noetica and/or anyone else to explain why there might be a problem with this example, or to suggest a better example, I've once again added the footnote to explain the gap between an ambiguous title and a title requiring WP:DISAMBIGUATION.
 * If someone wanted another example, using "special needs" or "developmental disability" as a euphemism for mental retardation is another possibility, but I think it will be less clear because it introduces a different problem (we discourage euphemisms even when they aren't ambiguous). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Examples: Boston Massacre
To Philip, examples are not required to be well-known, but they are required to be global. Various guidelines have long had too much Anglo-American bias via hasty selection of examples. Further, an actual case of spinout is to be preferred over a hypothetical case. Accordingly, Boston Massacre should be changed to Babi Yar massacre (or any of dozens of other good examples that can be found). JJB 13:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Babi Yar massacre is a redirect not an article, and most English speaking people would not so easily see that name as biased and presenting one POV.


 * "Various guidelines have long had too much Anglo-American bias" for whom are the guidelines written? For English speakers Boston Massacre is a well known and as it presents a POV which with a little thought is easy for English speaking people to see, so it is a very good example to use. Many other massacres do not so obviously present biased names to most English speaking people eg the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre is not obviously biased. Others are still very politically controversial eg the Croke Park Massacre (another redirect). So while many other massacres could be used in place of the Boston Massacre, many are either still very politically controversial or are not so obviously seen as biased. Very controversial and not obviously biased do not make good examples for use in this context. -- PBS (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the redirect, that does kill this particular example. But the basic point remains, examples are not required to be well-known, but they are required to be global. The search for the best examples should continue. JJB 22:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Examples are not required to be global. They merely need to illustrate the point well.  All of the examples we had in this policy prior to JJB's edits were very good at illustrating what the policy said.  Some of the ones JJB has switched to are ok, but in my opinion not as clear... and a few do not really illustrate the point well at all.   Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Boston Massacre" is a very good example of a commonly used POV name, precisely because there is debate among scholars as to whether it qualifies as a "Massacre". Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a new statement related to a view Blueboar expressed elsewhere. The idea that mainspace should be NPOV, unbiased, global, while metaspace can still be keenly American, need not be NPOV but can be very POV about its prescriptions, etc., is a double standard to me. I have argued that "Great Leap Forward" has the same debate among scholars and Wikipedians and thus is an equally good example. But as long as there's sufficient geodiversity among examples overall, an occasional good American example should be OK. JJB 16:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this will help WP:POLICY. Not that there ever was a requirement like you say in mainspace though there is a desire to have articles have a wider scope if applicable, like money shouldn't just cover dollars. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Title and Year
Should we add the year in front of the title. here are the examples MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2012 houla massacre
 * 2007–2012 global financial crisis
 * 1992−1994 operation clean-up
 * 2012 lyari operation


 * In most of the above cases, the year is required for disambiguation. There was a Houla massacre in 1948, there has been more than one global financial crisis in history, and "Lyari operation" is sufficiently generic to want a year. The only one that doesn't seem to need one is Operation Clean-up, which is a specific name for something that's only happened once so we shouldn't have years in the title, IMO. --Golbez (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly... It all depends on whether giving the title without adding the date would be ambiguous or not. If more than one event could be referred to by the un-dated title, then adding a date clarifies which event the specific article is about.  If, on the other hand, the undated title can refer to only one event, then there is no need to disambiguate by adding the date.  (Note: the date does not necessarily have to come first. You could also disambiguate using parentheticals: "Houla massacre (1948)" and "Houla massacre (2012)".  The form of disambiguation is really just a stylistic choice.) Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the last sentence is the real issue here. MohammedBinAbdullah has been changing titles so that the date appears first. IMO, this is not the best approach. As a general rule we disambiguate with brackets at the end. If I want to find out about an event, I will type the common name of the event, not the date (which I might not even know). Putting the date first makes it more difficult to find. Paul B (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ease of searching can be fixed by creating a redirect and/or a dab page. It's not "wrong" to put the date first (we have many articles that take this form)... neither is it "wrong" to put the date at the end, in parenthesis (we have many articles that take this form as well).  Both forms of disambiguation are acceptable.  It's really more a matter of editorial preference... whatever the editors who are working on the article think reads better.   Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Mr Occam famously said we should not multiply entities without necessity. Creating a dab page or a redirect when it's unnecessary is surely not the best way to go. I'm not arguing for a rigid rule, just a general preference for common sense. Paul B (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are established cases for both forms. Generally, if something has a given name (like Tropical Storm Katrina), we will put the year after, e.g. Tropical Storm Katrina (1999) and Hurricane Katrina (1981). But, this isn't the style for all hurricanes, as we still have, e.g., 1931 Belize hurricane. It would look much fouler to my eyes to see "Belize hurricane (1931)". Likewise, we tend to have the years up front for all earthquakes, e.g. 1906 San Francisco earthquake. It would look very strange to see "San Francisco earthquake (1906)". But, it would also look very strange to see "1981 Hurricane Katrina". It's hard to explain why, I just know it when I see it. It's like... we put the year in front when its name is natural, and after when its name is given. 1931 Belize hurricane, but Hurricane Katrina (1981). So for a fictional example, let's say there were two boxing matches named Rumble in the Jungle, and two other meetings between Ali and Foreman. We might have "1970 fight between Ali and Foreman" and "Rumble in the Jungle (1972)". It would look strange to see "Fight between Ali and Foreman (1970)" and "1972 Rumble in the Jungle". --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Plurals for names of peoples
I have posted a call for discussion at WT:PLURAL concerning a guideline on the use of plural titles for articles on peoples (nationalities, ethnic groups, &c.) which are currently almost always titled in the plural (e.g., Anglo-Saxons, Ukrainians) or with an adjective plus the plural "people" (Manchu people, Fur people). If you care, please feel free to discuss the issue there. — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack  02:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate naming as specified in reliable sources rather than usage by editorial survey of reliable sources
BB I reverted you change with the comment "revert last edit (see the talk page section "Questionable phrasing: Ambiguous or inaccurate") The point of the sentence is when reliable sources say specifically say that a name is inaccurate. (Eg heart attack) BB your change guts the sentence." because the change from: to Alters the meaning from a reliable source specifically saying a name is inaccurate to just the usual editorial survey of usage. If we have only the editorial survey meaning then we can remove the sentence completely -- something I am not necessarily against -- but a halfway house is just unnecessary and confusing. -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.
 * Ambiguous names for the article subject are sometimes avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.
 * OK. I am trying it with a slightly different formulation that retains the original meaning, while being less confusing imo. Any objections to this formulation? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your change was: "A common name may be avoided as the article title, if we have reliable sources who contend that the name in question is ambiguous or inaccurate for the article subject." I think it would be better if "if we have" were changed to "if there are". BB would that address you comment in the edit history "the fact that one reliable source says 'X' is wrong is not a reason to avoid 'X' " as both "have reliable sources" and "if there are reliable sources" mean more than one. -- PBS (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My problem is with including the word "inaccurate" in this context. If a particular name is the most commonly used by reliable sources then, due to that very predominance of usage, that name simply is not "inaccurate".  It may not be the "official" name or "approved" name... but it isn't inaccurate. Usage makes it accurate. Blueboar (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have taken your suggestion of removing the entire sentence (pending further discussion)... Unfortunately doing so removes the bit about avoiding the most commonly used name if that name is ambiguous (which I think is an important exception to WP:COMMONNAME, and should be stated.) Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

. OK. I notice our friend in ictu oculi has once again started a different section for what is an ongoing discussion, something for which he was warned very recently. Anyway, here is where we stand for the moment. Current phrasing:

The new phrasing I had added:

I think the second phrasing is saying just the same, but does it more clearly. Here are my reasons: Does anybody disagree? Any other good reasons why we should not use my proposed edit? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "often avoided" seems not to be the case, since we have struggled to find good examples for this exception ("heart attack" and "starfish" have been brought up so far). So "may be avoided" is more accurate and also more neutrally worded.
 * The point of the sentence is that we may make an exception (to the common name) when we have multiple reliable sources contending that the name in question is ambiguous or inaccurate, then we take that into account in our choosing of the optimal article title. Editors saying that a certain name is "inaccurate" is not good enough, they need to bring multiple sources saying so. I think my new phrasing made that more clear than the earlier one.
 * BB has formulated objection to the use of the word "inaccurate". It is indeed true that an "inaccurate name" may over time become the "accurate" name if it gets commonly used. But I think what we need is reliable sources not only saying that a name is "ambiguous or inaccurate" but also explaining why. "Heart attack" was a good example of a term that is deemed to be "ambiguous" and reliable sources explain why. The "starfish" is an example of a name that reliable sources consider to be "inaccurate" since they explain it is not really a "fish". Since with the "starfish" we have found an example of an "inaccurate name" I think we should retain "inaccurate" in the phrasing.


 * Starfish and Jellyfish are counterexamples; we use the subjects' most common names despite expert sources deeming them inaccurate.
 * An even better counterexample is D. B. Cooper, a factually erroneous name for the article's subject.
 * Diana, Princess of Wales is an example of an article for which we reject the subject's most common name (Princess Diana) on the basis that it's inaccurate.
 * Yes, but Blueboar is incorrect in stating that this occurs automatically and without exception.
 * Both "D. B. Cooper" and "Princess Diana" are examples of factually inaccurate names that predominate in common usage (which doesn't cause them to become accurate). As noted above, we use the former (but not the latter) as the title of the subject's article, presumably because it's the only common name (with the hijacker's actual alias remaining rather obscure).
 * Regarding ambiguous names, it's too specific.
 * There might not be "reliable sources who contend that the name in question is ambiguous". The current wording ("as determined by reliable sources") also refers to scenarios in which ambiguity is established via reliable sources' use of a term to mean more than one thing.
 * In other words, if some reliable sources refer to x as "foo" while other reliable sources refer to y as "foo", we can determine via reliable sources that the name "foo" is ambiguous (despite the fact that the sources aren't actively contending that it is). —David Levy 09:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are right on that point. There are "inaccurate names" that may be becoming more commonly used, but are not widely accepted as "accurate" alternatives yet. So, then we can agree to keep "inaccurate" somewhere in the phrasing, as was already the case in my proposed edit.
 * As for "Princess Diana". I do not think it is an "inaccurate name" but rather another example of an ambiguous name, because there have probable been other princesses with the name Diana.
 * This is true, but this is already covered in much greater detail in the WP:PRECISION section. So there is no need to try to cover this in the COMMONNAMES section as well. The sentence under discussion is specifically about exception cases where we may reject a certain common name on the basis of what reliable sources contend. Problems with the same common name being used for different topics is covered in the Precision and disambiguation section. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are right on that point. There are "inaccurate names" that may be becoming more commonly used, but are not widely accepted as "accurate" alternatives yet. So, then we can agree to keep "inaccurate" somewhere in the phrasing, as was already the case in my proposed edit.
 * As for "Princess Diana". I do not think it is an "inaccurate name" but rather another example of an ambiguous name, because there have probable been other princesses with the name Diana.
 * This is true, but this is already covered in much greater detail in the WP:PRECISION section. So there is no need to try to cover this in the COMMONNAMES section as well. The sentence under discussion is specifically about exception cases where we may reject a certain common name on the basis of what reliable sources contend. Problems with the same common name being used for different topics is covered in the Precision and disambiguation section. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true, but this is already covered in much greater detail in the WP:PRECISION section. So there is no need to try to cover this in the COMMONNAMES section as well. The sentence under discussion is specifically about exception cases where we may reject a certain common name on the basis of what reliable sources contend. Problems with the same common name being used for different topics is covered in the Precision and disambiguation section. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true, but this is already covered in much greater detail in the WP:PRECISION section. So there is no need to try to cover this in the COMMONNAMES section as well. The sentence under discussion is specifically about exception cases where we may reject a certain common name on the basis of what reliable sources contend. Problems with the same common name being used for different topics is covered in the Precision and disambiguation section. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the British monarchy, the title of "Princess" precedes a female's name only if she's a princess in her own right (not solely because she married a prince). Diana was not a princess by birth, nor was she created a princess by Queen Elizabeth II.  Therefore, "Princess Diana" is factually inaccurate (as a matter of both custom and law).
 * Perhaps not, but I see little wrong with the current wording (I've suggested substituting "sometimes" for "often") and no advantage to your proposed revision. —David Levy 23:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but I see little wrong with the current wording (I've suggested substituting "sometimes" for "often") and no advantage to your proposed revision. —David Levy 23:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but I see little wrong with the current wording (I've suggested substituting "sometimes" for "often") and no advantage to your proposed revision. —David Levy 23:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While "Princess Diana" may be more commonly used than "Diana, Princess of Wales", I don't think that usage issignificantly more common. Both versions of the name are common.
 * In other words, I don't think it is a good example of a WP:COMMONNAME situation. And if it isn't a WP:COMMONNAME situation, then it does not relate to what I am concerned about. I have no problem using Precision as a tie breaker between two common variations when there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME (we are allowed to use "Official" names, after all... we simply don't favor them over some other name that are significantly more commonly used).
 * As for "often" vs "sometimes"... Can anyone think of even five examples where we favored accuracy over a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME? I really suspect that this is a very rare occurrence... and if so, I am concerned that even mention it in the policy would give it undue weight.  We certainly should not say it happens "often"... and I question whether we should even say it happens "sometimes". Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, general policy pages should probably not try to describe every rare exception, because doing so would make the page overly long and do more harm than good (because the potential for confusion increases exponentially with the size of a page).
 * We seem to struggle to find good examples. And even if we manage to find five or ten very good examples, we should also wonder how many of these examples would have been normally solved by simply considering the 5 goals/criteria as stated in the first section. The commonnames section already refers directly to it by stating: "Editors should also ask the questions outlined above."
 * Furthermore, the world would not fall apart because we keep her article at Princess Diana. What would be the harm in it, since we give the full name and other alternative names in the lede anyway? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But I suspect that significant problems would arise if we were to modify the text in a manner [mis]interpreted to mean that we always use "the most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources".  We can tweak the precise wording, and we needn't mention every possible scenario, but it's very helpful to note that exceptions exist.
 * We'd be promoting a misnomer, but that's beside the point. I don't assert that such a change would be massively harmful.  We could use the title "Princess Di" without catastrophic consequences.  I'm merely referring to the decision that we've actually made (for better or worse).  —David Levy 21:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We'd be promoting a misnomer, but that's beside the point. I don't assert that such a change would be massively harmful.  We could use the title "Princess Di" without catastrophic consequences.  I'm merely referring to the decision that we've actually made (for better or worse).  —David Levy 21:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We'd be promoting a misnomer, but that's beside the point. I don't assert that such a change would be massively harmful.  We could use the title "Princess Di" without catastrophic consequences.  I'm merely referring to the decision that we've actually made (for better or worse).  —David Levy 21:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, these raw counts don't take into consideration the sources' reliability. Fortunately, Diana's posthumous media coverage remains immense, so a Google News search is feasible.
 * "Princess Diana" is "the most common name for [the] subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". If you don't regard a 4:1 disparity as "significant", we'll have agree to disagree.
 * Agreed. And "Princess Diana" is "the most common" (by a wide margin).  "Diana, Princess of Wales" is common too.  If it weren't, it wouldn't be a suitable title for the article.
 * Meaning what? WP:COMMONNAME contains language about using names other than the most common one in some instances.  That's what we're discussing.
 * You're missing the point. You assert that "if a particular name is the most commonly used by reliable sources then, due to that very predominance of usage, that name simply is not 'inaccurate'. ...  Usage makes it accurate."  While possible, that isn't universally true.  If reliable sources used "Princess Diana" 100 times or 1,000 times more commonly than they used "Diana, Princess of Wales", that still wouldn't "make it" accurate.  (However, it probably would affect our article's title.)
 * D. B. Cooper is the only common name for its subject. It also is factually inaccurate; the hijacker's alias was "Dan Cooper".  "D. B. Cooper" became attached to him due to a series of errors.
 * Again, you'll need to clarify what you mean by "a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME". WP:COMMONNAME contains the language "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.", so "[favoring] accuracy over a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME" is vague and self-contradictory.
 * If you mean "a clear case in which something is the most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" (only part of WP:COMMONNAME), you'll still need to be more specific; you evidently disagree that a 4:1 ratio qualifies, so I'm not inclined to bother seeking other examples.
 * I'll point out that I don't claim that we usually favor accuracy over commonness where conflicts exist. I've cited several examples of the opposite (Starfish, Jellyfish and D. B. Cooper).  —David Levy 21:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. You assert that "if a particular name is the most commonly used by reliable sources then, due to that very predominance of usage, that name simply is not 'inaccurate'. ...  Usage makes it accurate."  While possible, that isn't universally true.  If reliable sources used "Princess Diana" 100 times or 1,000 times more commonly than they used "Diana, Princess of Wales", that still wouldn't "make it" accurate.  (However, it probably would affect our article's title.)
 * D. B. Cooper is the only common name for its subject. It also is factually inaccurate; the hijacker's alias was "Dan Cooper".  "D. B. Cooper" became attached to him due to a series of errors.
 * Again, you'll need to clarify what you mean by "a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME". WP:COMMONNAME contains the language "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.", so "[favoring] accuracy over a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME" is vague and self-contradictory.
 * If you mean "a clear case in which something is the most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" (only part of WP:COMMONNAME), you'll still need to be more specific; you evidently disagree that a 4:1 ratio qualifies, so I'm not inclined to bother seeking other examples.
 * I'll point out that I don't claim that we usually favor accuracy over commonness where conflicts exist. I've cited several examples of the opposite (Starfish, Jellyfish and D. B. Cooper).  —David Levy 21:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean "a clear case in which something is the most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" (only part of WP:COMMONNAME), you'll still need to be more specific; you evidently disagree that a 4:1 ratio qualifies, so I'm not inclined to bother seeking other examples.
 * I'll point out that I don't claim that we usually favor accuracy over commonness where conflicts exist. I've cited several examples of the opposite (Starfish, Jellyfish and D. B. Cooper).  —David Levy 21:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "five examples where we favored accuracy" I may be missing something simple, so I wonder how many of these 9 examples fit what you mean by favoring accuracy over the most common name (just because I feel like prolonging this argument!) : Red Baron/Manfred von Richthofen, buffalo/American bison, gypsies/Romani people, stomach flu/gastroenteritis, Gorgeous George/George Wagner, Mad Anthony Wayne/Anthony Wayne, butt/buttocks, weight/mass, hara kiri/seppuku. Art LaPella (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps my position can be clarified by rephrasing: I think the WP:COMMONNAME is by definition "not inaccurate". I concede that the WP:COMMONNAME may not be the most accurate name... but it is still "accurate". For example...  Manfred von Richtofen may be more accurate than "Red Barron",  but this does not mean that "Red Barron" is inaccurate.
 * But let's get away from specific examples and think about what the policy itself says for a second... The policy has long held that when there is a choice between the COMMONNAME and an "Official name", we go with the COMMONNAME. I hope you will agree that official names are usually considered the most "accurate" name.  This means we have a inconsistency in the policy ... in one paragraph we tell readers "we often go with accuracy over common usage" while in the next we say "we should usually go with common usage over the (more accurate) official name".  Contradiction! Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You've continually reiterated this assertion without addressing my contradictory examples.
 * I've suggested that "often" be changed to "sometimes".
 * But you're conflating two separate concepts. The U.S. has a famous monument called "Liberty Enlightening the World".  That's its official name, but few would argue that it's more accurate than "Statue of Liberty" is.  It's merely more formal.
 * Conversely, some subjects are commonly known by names that actually are inaccurate (because they convey incorrect information). I've cited examples (the ones that you haven't addressed).  —David Levy 16:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But you're conflating two separate concepts. The U.S. has a famous monument called "Liberty Enlightening the World".  That's its official name, but few would argue that it's more accurate than "Statue of Liberty" is.  It's merely more formal.
 * Conversely, some subjects are commonly known by names that actually are inaccurate (because they convey incorrect information). I've cited examples (the ones that you haven't addressed).  —David Levy 16:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * David, can you explain to me how it is possible for what everyone calls something (the common name) to not be an accurate name for that thing?
 * Words are fundamentally arbitrary. If English speakers all agree that a given object is called foo, then foo really is the name for that object.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've cited specific examples (pertaining to persons, not objects) in great detail. —David Levy 18:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think that it is possible for the everyday, normal name of a thing (not a person or other proper noun) to be inaccurate?
 * I don't believe that the major goal of this section is to deal with proper nouns (e.g., the name of a person or business, which could change). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Art mentioned "stomach flu", a common name for gastroenteritis.  "Flu" is an abbreviation of "influenza", an unrelated family of viruses.  The name "stomach flu" is not a deliberate allusion to something superficially similar (as in the case of "seahorse"); it reflects a widespread misconception that the condition literally is a stomach flu (an influenza infection affecting the stomach).  Some people even believe that a flu vaccine can prevent it.
 * The section pertains to article titles in general. A majority of the examples listed therein are proper nouns.  —David Levy 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The section pertains to article titles in general. A majority of the examples listed therein are proper nouns.  —David Levy 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The section pertains to article titles in general. A majority of the examples listed therein are proper nouns.  —David Levy 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * By that standard, influenza itself is "inaccurate", since the name means that the disease is caused by the influence of an astrological situation. If you go look up flu in a dictionary, you'll find that stomach flu is encompassed in the definition.  It is (like most older disease names that assert a cause) IMO a misleading name, but it isn't "wrong".  If you tell someone that you had a bad case of stomach flu, they'll know what you are talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's merely the name's etymology, In modern usage, the word doesn't mean that.
 * Conversely, "flu" is commonly understood to refer to a particular family of viruses, none of which cause gastroenteritis (commonly known as "stomach flu" because of a widespread misconception to the contrary).
 * How so?
 * They'll understand the nature of the symptoms, yes. But there's a good chance that they'll believe that an influenza virus caused the condition.  —David Levy 02:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How so?
 * They'll understand the nature of the symptoms, yes. But there's a good chance that they'll believe that an influenza virus caused the condition.  —David Levy 02:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They'll understand the nature of the symptoms, yes. But there's a good chance that they'll believe that an influenza virus caused the condition.  —David Levy 02:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * David... looking back, you gave us two examples for people - Princess Diana and D.B. Cooper (If you gave others, I can not see them). These are not great examples... one (Princess Diana) has the complication of falling under the subject specific naming conventions laid out at WikiProject:Biography / Royalty and Nobility... in other words, it can be considered to be a known exception to WP:COMMONNAME. The other (D.B. Cooper) you said was factually inaccurate... I disagree... yes, the name is an alias, but it is factually accurate that "D.B. Cooper" was the hijacker's alias.
 * I am curious as to something else you said... apparently you draw a distinction between "accurate name" and "official name"... I don't understand this distinction. Would you explain it in more detail, please? Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WikiProjects "cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". You've cited a page on which a particular application of (not "exception" to) WP:COMMONNAME is documented.
 * No, it isn't. As I've noted repeatedly, the hijacker's alias was "Dan Cooper".  He became commonly known as "D. B. Cooper" via a series of erroneous news reports.
 * "Accurate" means "free from error; faithfully representing or describing the truth". "Official" means "authorized or issued authoritatively; sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority" (sources: Random House Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary via Dictionary.com).
 * In the case of Diana, Princess of Wales, referring to her as "Diana" is informal but not inaccurate. Conversely, referring to her as "Princess Diana" is inaccurate; as a matter of both custom and law, it conveys incorrect information (that Diana was a princess in her own right).  It's analogous to appending "Dr." to the name of someone lacking an applicable degree.
 * I mentioned the Statue of Liberty, whose official name is "Liberty Enlightening the World". "Statue of Liberty" is less formal but not less accurate; it conveys no erroneous, untruthful or misleading information.  —David Levy 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Accurate" means "free from error; faithfully representing or describing the truth". "Official" means "authorized or issued authoritatively; sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority" (sources: Random House Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary via Dictionary.com).
 * In the case of Diana, Princess of Wales, referring to her as "Diana" is informal but not inaccurate. Conversely, referring to her as "Princess Diana" is inaccurate; as a matter of both custom and law, it conveys incorrect information (that Diana was a princess in her own right).  It's analogous to appending "Dr." to the name of someone lacking an applicable degree.
 * I mentioned the Statue of Liberty, whose official name is "Liberty Enlightening the World". "Statue of Liberty" is less formal but not less accurate; it conveys no erroneous, untruthful or misleading information.  —David Levy 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I am apparently beating a dead horse--Accuracy and Precision are the wrong words. First and foremost we prefer WP:COMMONNAME for our article titles. Accuracy and Precision are impossible to define or characterize relative to Common Name and for titles in general. We should dump them completely. Everyone interested in this ought to peruse John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In particular his ideas about the abuse of words. This summary (Chapters II and X) portrays what Locke means by the Abuse of Words. If we continue to try and apply accuracy and precision to titles, we will continue to be abusing the English language and doing our editors no favors. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assertion that "First and foremost we prefer WP:COMMONNAME". There are so many official exceptions (royalty, species, etc.) in which we deliberately and significantly reject the everyday name that it really cannot be considered the most important principle.  Also, we talked a while ago about whether one or the other principle was more important, and nearly everyone agreed that no principle—not even COMMONNAME—trumped the others.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I will rephrase - Absent a specific, agreed upon naming convention, we first and foremost we prefer WP:COMMONNAME. Regardless, my thoughts on accuracy and precision still stand.  My dream would be that we have specific naming conventions for every major topic area.  That would solve alot of this babel where every answer is right and every answer is wrong (of course depending on your personal perspective). --Mike Cline (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we basically have our main naming policies (of which WP:COMMONNAME covers an important aspect), and in some cases these main policies may be overridden by naming conventions (but not necessarily). I agree that accuracy and precision are not ideal terms to use in this context. I have been thinking what term would best express our "precise and concise" criteria, and I think the best word for it is: succinct. We look for a title that is "precise enough" to identify the topic and at the same time concise. Well, that is succinct. So, what we really try for is article titles that are both "common" and "succinct". That's the most simple formulation we can give to our general naming policy.
 * In some cases we have naming conventions, and they may favor a choice that is somewhat less common or less succinct. Then we need to find a concensus on what is the best compromise. And we could see to it that our naming conventions also try for the names that are "common" and "succinct" within their topic area. That are my thoughts for the moment.
 * I have been reading Blueboar's comments/question whether we can really say that a common name is inaccurate. I think he is right in this respect: what we have is that even an "inaccurate name" can accurately refer to the given topic, so in that sense even an "inaccurate name" is not an inaccurate name. Maybe it becomes more clear if we say: an erroneous name is not an inaccurate name. Yes, it can be an ambiguous name if other topics use the same name, but that can be solved through dab. Is that what Blueboar was trying to say? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

inaccurate titles - random break

 * I do think there is a distinction to be made between erroneous names and inaccurate names... but my point lies elsewhere... If a significant majority of reliable sources all refer to the subject by a particular name (the WP:COMMONNAME)... then that name becomes accurate through that very usage. Indeed there is a strong argument for saying that such abundance of usage makes it no longer erroneous as well.  Who are we to say that all those sources are "wrong". Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this will clarify my point... an inaccurate (or erroneous) name can be a perfectly acceptable title for an article.... indeed, the COMMONNAME is usually the preferred article title.  Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this does clarify your point. I agree with that statement.  —David Levy 15:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this does clarify your point. I agree with that statement.  —David Levy 15:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I had problems with the sentence and I think that the footnote recently added helps.

Very few examples have been raised where this is applicable if at all. One was the use of tidal wave and tsunami -- it used to be the in the policy. See this recent new item about the SS Richard Montgomery. and given that it is in the Thames Estuary, which is only susceptible to waves at high tide, the term is more understandable to their readers than tsunami as flood defences would not be breached at low tide).

With the footnote change, I think we are left with a simpler choice. As very few examples have been found should we keep the sentence with the footnote, or should we delete the sentence completely? -- PBS (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have yet to make up my mind on whether to keep it or delete it, but I think that Blueboar's arguments are persuasive. -- PBS (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we necessarily need to cut the entire sentence. My problem is purely with "or inaccurate". Cut that and the rest of the sentence is basically OK.  I think the part about ambiguous names is essentially correct.  We do often choose a less common name as the title when the COMMONNAME is ambiguous. Or to put it another way... Ambiguous names generally don't make acceptable titles (although, with disambiguation added, they can form part of an acceptable title). Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But the whole point of this sentence is not that we (editors) choose in the usual way, but that we choose a different name in this case because some of the reliable sources say the common name is wrong, eg a wave caused by an earthquake is not a tidal wave (so that is not an appropriate name to use) even if the common name for the wave is "tidal wave". Editorial choice based on such things as ambiguous names is covered by other sentences in other places. In my opinion this sentence should only remain if that point is explicitly and clearly made by the sentence. -- PBS (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question... is "tidal wave" still the most common usage? If we look at reliable sources written in the last 10 years, there seems to be a huge increase in the use of "Tsunami". "Tidal wave" may now be less common (and perhaps even becoming an archaic usage).  I ask this because from my experience, a lot of the debates over "accuracy" in titles occur when either there is no real COMMONNAME (ie one name does not stand out as having significantly more usage) or when usage frequency is shifting (ie the COMMONNAME is changing from one name or term to another). Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer ... Google ngrams agrees with you. Art LaPella (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are both missing the point of the example, and the question I am asking. The tidal wave/tsunami was removed as an example because after the Indian Ocean disaster of 2004 common usage shifted (so it was no longer an expert term not frequently used in reliable news sources). The question I am asking is: given the clarity we now have with the sentence with the inclusion of the footnote, and given the paucity of examples we have come up on this talk page, should we keep the sentence or delete it? -- PBS (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is that we probably should keep the sentence and footnote (and just cut the words "or inaccurate").  Essentially, what the sentence (without "or inaccurate") is noting that there is an "ambiguity exception" to WP:COMMONNAME (ie in situations where the COMMONNAME is ambiguous, it is acceptable to choose a less common but unambiguous name as the title). Mentioning this "ambiguity exception" to COMMONNAME in the WP:COMMONNAME section makes sense.  My concern is that I don't think there is a matching "accuracy exception" to WP:COMMONNAME, which is why I object to the words "or inaccurate". Blueboar (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a terrible addition to the policy. We can find many people commenting ironically on the names applies to Johnson's Great Society and on Maos' Great Leap Forward as the word "Great" being "inaccurate", yet these are the names the entire English speaking world using for these subjects. Examples are legion, and for many you can find some reliable sources saying the name is inaccurate, while that name nevertheless utterly predominating. As was said by various users at Talk:Bulletproof glass "Yes it's inaccurate, just as nickel silver contains no silver, French toast is neither French nor toast, and crocodile tears are neither tears nor ever shed by crocodiles" ... "And just to pile on, silverfish, tiger's eye, Chinese chequers, firefly, English horn..." This guts WP:COMMONNAME.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * um... actually, it isn't an addition... it has been in the policy for quite a while... I am proposing that we remove it. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My tense may have confused you but I was speaking in the catholic sense; it is a terrible addition to this policy (whenever it occurred). In any event, if it wasn't clear, I am aware we are here about removal and am supporting that wholeheartedly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah...Thanks for that clarification. So... given what has been said so far, and the growing support for removal... does anyone still have an objection to doing so? Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to become clear that we already use a lot of "inaccurate names" on wp, while really good examples of "inaccurate names" being refused have not been easy to find. Would we refuse a nickname like "King of..." on the basis that it is not really a king? If "Princess Diana" was not strictly a princess, so what? It is an instantly recognizable name, and that she was not strictly a princess can be pointed out in the article somewhere. So, I see no good reason to keep it, unless it is the purpose to confuse editors who come to read this policy page. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable argument. As I noted previously, I don't believe that such a title would cause any major problems.  But for better or worse, it isn't the one that we use (despite being the subject's most common name among reliable sources).  —David Levy 02:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's little doubt that we typically favor common usage over accuracy (where conflicts exist), but I'm not convinced that the opposite is rare enough to omit. If we apply a different naming convention to an entire subject area (such as royalty articles), it's a normal (albeit minority) Wikipedia practice.
 * I previously suggested replacing "often" with "sometimes". I now have a different proposal: replace "inaccurate" with "misleading".  I believe that this would cover the relevant cases while addressing the concerns expressed above.  —David Levy 02:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... that might be a possibility... could you give an example of a COMMONNAME that you would consider a misleading title? Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You just touched upon an issue similar to the one behind your criticism of "inaccurate". There's a subtle distinction between a misleading/inaccurate name for a subject and a misleading/inaccurate title for its article.  The policy is intended to refer to the former (and your complaint appears to relate to the latter), so perhaps we simply need to clarify this point.
 * For example, let's go back to "Princess Diana". The name is misleading/inaccurate (because she wasn't a princess in her own right), but as a title, it would clearly identify the article's subject.  The underlying issue regarding the name would be present (someone might mistakenly believe that she was a princess in her own right), but the article's subject would be exactly what one associates with the title "Princess Diana".
 * As discussed above, the same is true of "stomach flu" (though that doesn't appear to be the subject's most common name).
 * Of course, we do use names that reliable sources regard as misleading/inaccurate as our articles' titles, particularly when the alternatives are insufficiently common/recognizable. (Examples include the aforementioned "starfish" and "D. B. Cooper".)
 * So no matter what wording we use, we should be careful to avoid implying that we always follow a particular course of action. —David Levy 18:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK... I think I see where our disconnect is... you say, "this policy is intended to refer to the former" (ie names for a subject)... I disagree with that. What COMMONNAME is talking about is what the title of our article should be - when that title is a name, and not a description. It is saying that we should look to frequency of usage in reliable sources to determine which of several possible names we should choose as our article title.  We are not using commonness of usage to determine what the "correct" or "accurate" name of the subject is... we are merely using the concept of commonness to choose a title for our article. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that the Article titles policy is about article titles. I was referring to the sentence under discussion, which pertains to "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject" (emphasis mine).  In determining the most suitable article title, if the subject's most common name is ambiguous or inaccurate/misleading (as determined in reliable sources), we sometimes use a different common name instead.
 * You wrote (and I agree) "that an inaccurate (or erroneous) name can be a perfectly acceptable title for an article". This is the subtle distinction that I seek to recognize.  More often than not, we use the subject's most common name as our article's title, even if reliable sources regard it as inaccurate/misleading.  (Examples include Starfish and D. B. Cooper.)  In other instances (such as Diana, Princess of Wales), we use a different common name instead.
 * You requested "an example of a COMMONNAME that [I] would consider a misleading title". This depends on what one means by "misleading title".  As noted above, the title "Princess Diana" would not be mistaken as a reference to a different subject, but it would carry with it the name's inaccuracy; readers might be misled to believe that she was a princess in her own right.  So instead of the subject's most common name ("Princess Diana") we use a different common name, "Diana, Princess of Wales".
 * Likewise, the title "Starfish" might lead someone to mistakenly believe that the organism is a type of fish. But in that instance, no alternative name is sufficiently common/recognizable, so we use "Starfish" anyway.
 * Of course not. We're discussing a scenario in which we select a name other than the most common as our article's title.
 * We aren't merely using the concept of commonness. That's why the text in question exists.
 * I'm sincerely attempting to address your concern. I find it a bit disconcerting that you performed this edit while the above discussion (including my new proposal) was in progress.  Why did you even bother asking me to elaborate?  —David Levy 15:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not. We're discussing a scenario in which we select a name other than the most common as our article's title.
 * We aren't merely using the concept of commonness. That's why the text in question exists.
 * I'm sincerely attempting to address your concern. I find it a bit disconcerting that you performed this edit while the above discussion (including my new proposal) was in progress.  Why did you even bother asking me to elaborate?  —David Levy 15:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We aren't merely using the concept of commonness. That's why the text in question exists.
 * I'm sincerely attempting to address your concern. I find it a bit disconcerting that you performed this edit while the above discussion (including my new proposal) was in progress.  Why did you even bother asking me to elaborate?  —David Levy 15:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thought we had a consensus... but apparently not
I thought the above discussion showed consensus for removing "or inaccurate", and edited accordingly... however, PBS has has raised an objection. From his edit summary for his revert his concern is that I also removed the bit about "as determined in reliable sources". My rational for doing this additional removal is as follows... If we only remove the words "or inaccurate" the sentence would read: The way I understand that sentence, we are telling readers that we avoid using ambiguous (but COMMONNAME) names as a title ONLY if we can point to a source that says the name is ambiguous. I don't think that is what we intend to say. Also, my understanding was that the bit about "as determined by reliable sources" was a qualification to "inaccurate" names, and not to ambiguous names. Thus, my thought was that if we remove "or inaccurate", the qualification "as determined in reliable sources" becomes irrelevant. Your thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ambiguous3 names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."


 * I'd already raised an objection — along with an alternative proposal intended to address your concern — which were under discussion when you abruptly performed that edit.
 * The edit summary was: "My position is either keep the sentence about criticisms of usage in reliable sources or remove the sentence completely"
 * My interpretation is that PBS advocates either keeping or removing the entire sentence (hence the full reversion), but I could be mistaken.
 * No, it means that our determination that a name is ambiguous must be based on material from reliable sources. As I discussed with MakeSense64, if some reliable sources refer to x as "foo" while other reliable sources refer to y as "foo", we can determine via reliable sources that the name "foo" is ambiguous (despite the fact that the sources don't explicitly say that it is).  This is why I object to MakeSense64's proposed wording: "reliable sources who contend that the name in question is ambiguous or inaccurate for the article subject".  That would introduce the problem that you describe.
 * I strongly disagree. That's reflected in neither the above discussion nor Wikipedia's basic standards; we don't take it upon ourselves to deem names "ambiguous" without reliable sources' backing (in the manner described above).  —David Levy 17:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it means that our determination that a name is ambiguous must be based on material from reliable sources. As I discussed with MakeSense64, if some reliable sources refer to x as "foo" while other reliable sources refer to y as "foo", we can determine via reliable sources that the name "foo" is ambiguous (despite the fact that the sources don't explicitly say that it is).  This is why I object to MakeSense64's proposed wording: "reliable sources who contend that the name in question is ambiguous or inaccurate for the article subject".  That would introduce the problem that you describe.
 * I strongly disagree. That's reflected in neither the above discussion nor Wikipedia's basic standards; we don't take it upon ourselves to deem names "ambiguous" without reliable sources' backing (in the manner described above).  —David Levy 17:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. That's reflected in neither the above discussion nor Wikipedia's basic standards; we don't take it upon ourselves to deem names "ambiguous" without reliable sources' backing (in the manner described above).  —David Levy 17:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. That's reflected in neither the above discussion nor Wikipedia's basic standards; we don't take it upon ourselves to deem names "ambiguous" without reliable sources' backing (in the manner described above).  —David Levy 17:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Google Ngrams
Here is a graph showing the English-language usage of "doppelgänger" vs "doppelganger" in all books scanned by Google: Here is the recent RM discussion for doppelganger: Talk:Doppelg%C3%A4nger, which has snowballed in the wrong direction. I see only two possible explanations: Now that we have such a simple tool to see objectively which version of a loanword or a name is more common in English language usage, why don't we use this to simplify our titling and RM procedures? We may still need the RM procedure for very recent or rare words, which may not be covered in books before 2008. But for all other cases this can often be used (and yes, there will be exceptions for ambiguous words or names). Another interesting example for Paul Erdos:. Our article for him says "Occasionally spelled Erdos...", but that is now demonstrably wrong, since he is overwhelmingly spelled Erdos. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)Our current AT and UE policies are completely dead letter.
 * 2)Or our existing RM procedure is completely failing to apply AT and UE.


 * For English-language GBooks since 1990, I get 12,300 umlauted doppelganger hits out of 39,900. That's 31 percent usage for the diacritic. So ngram misses the vast majority of diacritic usage. Kauffner (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure about that. A more complete version is this Ngram where we can also see the use of the capitalized versions.
 * Below the graph you can click on links that lead right to gbook search for the given periods, and it shows similar numbers than the ones you pulled up. Then why is this not reflected in the chart? I think the reason is this. gbook search shows you a number of hits, in which books the given word appears, but it doesn't tell you how often the word is used in each book (it may appear just once or it may appear 20 times). Ngraphs show how often a word appears in the complete text of all these books. That Ngrams does pick up the diacritics is easily shown by pulling up the graph for the German corpus . MakeSense64 (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OCR software does not reliably catch diacritics in English-language text (in fact it tends to stumble badly over any rare or foreign words), so Ngrams can't be used to resolve this particular question. In any case, encyclopedias need to maintain higher standards of accuracy than the average book or newspaper, which of course is why these discussions often snowball in the right direction. :-) Xanthoxyl  &lt; 10:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So of course the thing to do is to examine the sources returned by Google book and scholar searches to check if the OCR returns are accurate and if pattern returned is about the subject of the article title. As to your statement " encyclopedias need to maintain higher standards of accuracy than the average book or newspaper", it is not up to Wikipedia a tertiary source, to dictate what is right (WP:PSTS). As a  tertiary source Wikipedia should follow this policy and reflect usage in reliable English language secondary sources (WP:V, WP:AT). -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But Google simply trawls through every available text, without assessing its reliability, so the massive corpus it creates is not a reliable secondary source. And I'm afraid that the ordinary people who turn to a reference work do in fact expect it to be as accurate as possible, based on material with high scholarly standards, and therefore more accurate (or at least more conservative) than any "average" text. That means that that Wikipedia should, when faced with a choice between pedantry and dumbing down, lean somewhat towards pedantry. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 12:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ngrams has to be misworking here:
 * only "doppelganger" 143.000 results
 * only "doppelgänger" 285.000 results
 * --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This represents mainly German usage. I already did a more sophisticated count than this above. Kauffner (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Enric Naval I would suggest that you use an English language Google search engine (uk au, etc), and that you limit the searches to English language sources over the last 20 year, as including books in searches more than a about quarter of a century old or in foreign languages can distort the figures. @Xanthoxyl do you have a source to say it is "dumbing down" or "pedantry" to follow usage in reliable English language sources or are you just expressing you own opinion? For example the OED gives three alternative spelling in this order: "doppelganger | doppleganger | doppelgänger" so which is the "dumbing down" and which is the "pedantry" usage?-- PBS (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your questions are non sequiturs; what I said was that a hit-count from Google Books is (a) distorted by the systematic errors of OCR and (b) not based on high-quality sources. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Oh God, not another stupid diacritics debate).... In the English language, both doppelganger and doppelgänger are considered accurate. So "accuracy" is not an issue either way.  Just choose one or the other and move on.  Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not so much about accuracy, I think it is a good tool to quickly check "commonness" of different variants (which can also be for words without diacritics). A few observations about it after playing around with it a bit:
 * It shows the evolution over the years, which is useful to see if more recent usage has changed.
 * It doesn't just show us in how many sources a given word appears, it shows us how often the word appears in the entire body of text.
 * The OCR error theory looks rather weak to me, since when you turn to Spanish or German corpus it turns out the diacritics words completely normally. If their OCR can detect an "ñ" in Spanish texts, then why it would not do so in English texts? The fact that it does detect diacritics in English texts is easily seen here: . Let's also not forget that scanning problems are more likely to occur with much older books (50s or 60s) and not so likely with recent books (which often do not need to be scanned because exist in electronic format as well). I would doubt that so many scanning errors occur that these results become completely unreliable.
 * They also offer the raw data for download.
 * MakeSense64 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a useful tool for examining English usage. However, the reason that OCR garbles foreign words embedded in English-language text is that all OCR relies heavily on dictionaries to identify words, even when the source image is very clear. All you have to do is to attempt to scan a text with incorrect language settings (or without a dictionary file) to see what happens. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess google uses somewhat better ocr software than the one we can buy in the shop. And I think they scan older books, but for more recent ones they don't need to scan since many books are now also in electronic version. It is mainly the recent usage (say last 5 or 10 years) that we consider for article titles. If their ocr garbles so many foreign words in English texts, then shouldn't we see plenty of evidence for that in google book searches? I am sure it happens, but I doubt it happens very frequently. Google's reputation would suffer if their scanned texts are too full with garbled foreign words.
 * As for what you say about an encyclopedia requiring higher standards, thus put more weight on the higher quality sources. That is true for the sources we use for the article text, we look for the best sources. But for the article titles we take "commonness" over "accuracy". There is a sentence in WP:AT that says that for article titles we serve the general audience rather than the specialists. So for titles we take common sources over specialist sources. Appearance of a term in the google book search corpus is probably striking a good balance between general audience and specialist sources. E.g. "aspirin" is more common than "acetylsalicylic acid" . But in scholarly sources the scientific term is probably more common. We have the article at Aspirin because in article titles we serve the general audience and not the specialists. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Google's OCR is of average quality. If you look carefully at the cut-and-paste text it provides to accompany public domain scanned works, you will see that it contains plenty of errors. There is no perfect OCR software: that is why PGDP exists, for example.
 * Apart from that, I agree that "aspirin", "Joan of Arc", and other common names make the most appropriate titles. But the spelling of a word is trickier, and most people who consult an encyclopedia expect it to use the "most authentic" or "original" version (where such a thing exists) from the point of view of an expert, even if a simplified version is common. For this reason Paul Erdős retains the Hungarian letter, but, in the title of George Frideric Handel, the word Händel is spelt without the dots, because Handel decided to alter his name. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 18:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Xanthoxyl. I would expect that google is using a top quality OCR and a top quality scanner (as that will also influence the output of OCR) for their digitizing project. Do you have any sources contending that google works with average quality gear? Or is it just your opinion?
 * Do you have any good examples of their digitized texts showing plenty of errors if you compare with the actual book page scans (or with the book itself)? From what years are the books for which such discrepancies are easily found?
 * I know google uses their recaptcha system to get human eyes look at words that the machine couldn't read: Google reCAPTCHA, but that is generally for words from degraded or old books with lower quality print. I don't think such problems are common for the year 2000 or later books.
 * I disagree that the spelling of a word or name is trickier. WP:ON flatly denies that we are to use the "most authentic" or "original" version as the article title even if a simplified version is common. It says just the opposite: use the common version if there is one. Whatever "most authentic" or "original" version exists can get mentioned in the lede and/or in the article text.
 * I know there are more than a few editors who think that we should be using Chicago MOS spelling for article titles, but as long as that is not written in our policies I don't think we should be doing it. Do you agree? MakeSense64 (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Google is not using a "top quality" OCR, because that would be enormously time-consuming given how much it has to process. Here is a book with very clear, practically flawless, scan images. Here is how it renders the first page: "You have seen better days dear So have I And worse too for they brought no such bud mouth As yours to lisp You wish you knew me Well Wise men t is said have sometimes wished the same And wished and had their trouble for their pains Suppose my CEdipus should lurk at last Under a pork pie hat and crinoline" Notice that the punctuation has vanished and that the word Œdipus, although printed as clearly as possible, has been bungled. On the next page, the line "Bright Corinth, not dull Thebes, for Laïs' sake," is turned into "Bright Corinth not dull Thebes for Lais sake", so the diacritics on the letter I have been missed. These results are quite typical.
 * The essay WP:ON (which is not a policy) concerns recognizability, particularly of royalty, nobility, geographic names, and other instances in which an "official name" might be something highly unexpected. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 05:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's a book from the year 1871 you are citing there. Of course such old books are very hard to scan and put through OCR. There is probably a good reason why the Ngrams start from the year 1950. Do you have examples of lots of bungled text in books published after 1990? or even after 1950?
 * I now take it that your contention that google does not use "top quality" OCR is based on your opinion rather than on any reliable source. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The OCR is clearly biased, at least for English books, against recognizing diacrtics. See the links and discussion of soufflé and frappé in the section below.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @MakeSense: Excuse me, did you even look at the scan? It is as clear as a scan could possibly be. It is common knowledge that OCR does not pick up diacritics reliably in English-language text, and frequently garbles proper nouns and rare words. For this reason, NGrams and hit-counts from Google Books can't be used to decide the matter of diacritics, or the usage of foreign words, in English-language text. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 06:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"Island", to add or not to add
I can't find a guideline or rule on when to include "Island" in the article title. There are obvious examples where it is added (Long Island and Staten Island) and where it isn't (Crete and Santorini). But what to do in the case of less known islands, like Saso Island. I'm leaning towards not adding it unless it is needed for disambiguation. What do others think? Anyone got a good rule of thumb? -- Orionist  ★  talk  10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See: WP:COMMONNAME... Look through lots and lots of English language sources that mention the location ... if a significant majority of them refer to it by name as " <X> Island" (ie if the word "Island" is included as part of the location's "name") then our article title should follow this common usage in the sources. If a significant majority of sources refer to the location without the word "Island" included as part of its "name", then our article title should follow the usage in the sources and not include the word. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In that regard, how to construct a search for this to focus on the commonname issue may not be intuitive because searches for "Saso" will also find "Saso Island" so a search just saso will also find the longer term, and there are also many other things call saso so many false positives will be found. Accordingly, when using, say, Google Books and Google New Archive, I suggest first finding a limiter, something that is likely to only be associated with this topic among other using "saso" and include it in both searches, and then exclude the longer title from the search of the shorter. Here this might be <Saso -"Saso Island" "Red Sea"> vs. <"Saso Island" "Red Sea">--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup... be very wary of "hit counts". In fact, on-line search hit counts can only give you an initial rough estimate of usage (even when properly constructed). To really get an accurate assessment of COMMONNAME you have go a step further... You need to actually take a look at the sources themselves, and see the usage in context (ie you need to actually open and read/skim through a the "hits" that come up in your on-line search).  You also need to look for sources that are not necessarily on-line (old fashioned paper books, atlases, encyclopedias, etc) and thus would not be represented in a search engine hit count. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Or at least beware of a search like Saso - "Saso Island". Notice that every hit on the page includes the allegedly excluded phrase "Saso Island". Maybe someone knows how to really exclude a phrase, but to me the feature just doesn't work. A better idea is to Google a word like "Saso", examine the first 10 or more hits, and see how many fit the patterns you are looking for. Art LaPella (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, to really exclude the phrase you need to have the minus sign next to the phrase, not spaced from it as you did, ala here. You can get the same results using the operator AND NOT.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * However you set up your search... the point remains the same. To determine whether we should include the word "Island" in the title of our article (or not), we should look at the sources and follow what they do.    Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. I also would suggest giving a lot of weight to how the nearest major English newspaper refers to it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why the nearest? Wouldn't that have a lot of bias away from how the island place is referred to world-wide?  And why newspaper?  Dicklyon (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with giving more weight to any particular source or type of source... what you want to do is make a dispassionate examination of lots of sources (and not just in any one genre... so, sure, look at newspapers ... but also look at history books, maps & atlases, tourist info, other encyclopedias,  etc. etc.)  Try to get a broad picture of usage. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One point of caution on this "broad picture" issue. In the Scottish context you will get any number of ghits for "isle of Skye" etc. because tourist sites will tend to emphasise the romantic notion of island life. However academic sources, major publications about islands, Ordnance Survey maps, the census etc. will use "Skye", which is the island's name. My rule of thumb would be that unless genuinely reliable sources use "Isle of", "Island" etc. it is best to leave it out. The kind of source that is and is not "reliable" may vary from country to country, but I would urge discrimination. Ben   Mac  Dui  07:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree... however... if there are significantly more tourist sites romantically calling an island "Isle of Foo" than there are academic and government sources calling it "Foo", then "Isle of Foo" will be more recognizable and natural to the reader. And, if that is the case, our article should be entitled "Isle of Foo".
 * Remember, we are not talking about determining what the "official" or "correct" name for the location is... we are merely talking about determining what the best title for a Wikipedia article is. We don't necessarily use a location's "correct" or "official" name as our title... sometimes a "wrong" name will be the best title. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed we do. But nor must we allow Mrs McGinty's bed and breakfast something approaching equal weight with a government department with an important role to play in island affairs. essentially, it is not a question of mere numbers but rather the quality of the sources used. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Before we turn naming an article into a six-year research project, remember that most editors probably don't even know this guideline exists, and the longer the rules are, the more certainly they won't be read. Art LaPella (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What about typesetting titles?
Is it a good idea to typeset titles? For example, the document markup language and document preparation system LaTeX uses this special typesetting for the logo, while the title for the article currently looks like "LaTeX". I previously typesett the article title to look like "LaTeX", but that edit was reverted. What are the guidelines for typesetting titles? —Kri (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That article is hideous. It needs a severe battering with MOS:TM as soon as possible. - X201 (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. I found the section Standard English and trademarks on this project page more helpful, though. I didn't know that "LaTeX" was concidered a trademark. Thanks. —Kri (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored 16 May deletion to WP:COMMONNAME status quo 23 March
WP:COMMONNAME is part of the basic building blocks of WP:AT, to have this section (i) used as a sandbox, (ii) deleted for 7 days, is not helpful to promoting encyclopaedic accuracy. This deleted section in particular is one of the few clear instructions to keep to encyclopaedic standards, high-MOS, etc rather than let en.wp slide into a tabloid blog where WP:MAJORITYNAME is the rule. Rather than further sandboxing (almost edit-warring?) in the text of WP:COMMONNAME, if there are constructive improvements to the sentence (I see some above but not too convincing), let's list the options, and then gain community-wide consensus before further sandboxing in the article text or deleting. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the sentence is missing two words:


 * Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by other otherwise reliable sources. 
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the return of the text as far as ambiguous names are concerned... but I strongly disagree where "inaccurate" names are concerned. The problem here is that we don't discount the most commonly used name because someone thinks it is "inaccurate"... indeed the entire point of COMMONNAME is to settle disputes over accuracy (whether between editors or between sources) by using whatever name is most commonly used in the sources.  Essentially we are saying that the the name that is used most commonly in the sources is accurate... by definition.  Furthermore, as it stands now (with the word "inaccurate" included, the paragraph in question is directly contradicted by the paragraph that follows it (on "official names").  Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * [NB the text does not say "because someone thinks it is "inaccurate"" but "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources" There's no question that WP:RS show the popular majority name to be inaccurate.] In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I have restored "or inaccurate" to status quo (again), please do not remove this again without full agreement. Per WP:Five Pillars "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy" so accuracy is an aim of WP. I do not believe that the entire point of WP:COMMONNAME is to settle disputes over accuracy, but even if that is the case, in many cases accuracy can be established. It is not the case that the the name that is used most commonly in the sources is accurate... by definition since what are reliable sources must also be assessed. Only what is most commonly in reliable-for-purpose sources is the basis. Otherwise we'll be writing biology articles from 100x creationist websites rather than 10x academic papers. This applies to content, naming, and within naming to high-MOS orthography. If you want to qualify accurate with "accurate according to reliable-for-purpose sources" then that's fine. Deleting "accurate", sorry, isn't.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of where an article might want to include a name which is known to be inaccurate from a minority of reliable-for-purpose sources, but is used by the majority of otherwise reliable sources, which are accurate in other matters but not on the name? And where removal of "or inaccurate" would benefit the article by allowing the known-to-be-inaccurate name to be used? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand your questions (and I'm not 100% sure of that), the starfish article comes to mind. For decades, marine biologists have sought to promote "sea star" as a common name for members of the class Asteroidea.  "Starfish" is considered inaccurate (because these organisms aren't fish), but it nonetheless remains the most common name among non-specialist sources (and reliable sources in general).  As a result, several discussions have demonstrated consensus for the article to use that title (despite the inaccuracy).
 * Likewise, we use the title jellyfish (not "sea jelly"). —David Levy 01:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Or indeed silverfish. Okay that gives me an indication of what one intent behind the line. Though I don't really see how starfish jellyfish and silverfish are "inaccurate", it's simply a popular name. Okay that captures a reasonable aspect of accuracy - so when names are "scientifically inaccurate" there is a good case for waiving that aspect of accuracy. My starting point of reference is actually "orthographically inaccurate": a minority of sources spell "François Mitterrand" a majority of unreliable-for-purpose sources spell "Francois Mitterrand" in this case there's no advantage (ease of finding starfish jellyfish and silverfish), so where is the advantage to the User in going with inaccuracy? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You touched on the answer later in your reply; they're considered scientifically inaccurate. When my elementary school class visited an aquarium (more than twenty years ago), the marine biologist leading the tour advised us that the name "starfish" was incorrect.  That seems to be a common view among expert sources.  Their concern, I believe, is that the public (particularly schoolchildren) might mistakenly believe that these organisms actually are fish.  (Obviously, this doesn't apply to silverfish.)
 * A noteworthy example of popular usage trumping factual accuracy is D. B. Cooper. The unidentified man in question used the alias "Dan Cooper".  An inexperienced reporter mistakenly substituted the name of an uninvolved individual briefly questioned by police.  Other sources repeated the error, leading to the widespread misconception that hijacker identified himself as "D. B. Cooper", the inaccurate name by which he remains commonly known to this day.  —David Levy 02:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sure, correct and clear on starfish. But I'm not convinced that D. B. Cooper would be a suitable justification for an inaccurate title for a BLP, in describing an urban legend maybe. How about Talk:Doppelgänger, since that is on WP:RM at the moment citing WP:COMMONNAME as a reason for inaccurate orthography? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting otherwise.
 * In this context, "doppelganger" is not a misspelling of a German word; it's an accepted variant of a loanword descended therefrom. If we were bound by German orthography, the use of a lowercase "d" would be incorrect, as would the use of an "s" to pluralize the word.
 * However, it's common for loanwords in the English language to retain their diacritics, and this is such an instance; "doppelgänger" (with the umlaut intact) also is an accepted variant, so I don't find Fluffystar's and GoodDay's rationales compelling. —David Levy 04:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just edited image caption to accord with RS that the FBI used "John Doe/aka Dan Cooper" btw. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems appropriate. —David Levy 04:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with all 3 above comments. How then practically can the wording "accurate" which Blueboard has concerns with best be adjusted (or left alone) to capture (i) the quite sensible starfish example, (ii) the doppelgänger example? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't regard the "doppelgänger" example as relevant, as neither variant is inaccurate in the English language.
 * I'm not sure that the wording requires adjustment. If anything, perhaps we should change "often" to "sometimes" (to avoid implying that one approach takes precedence).  Apart from that, it seems fine.  Contrary to Blueboar's broad assertions, we do sometimes reject subjects' most common names on the basis that they're inaccurate.  For example, "Princess Diana" is far more common than "Diana, Princess of Wales" is.  But the former is inaccurate (based upon codified conventions), so it redirects to the latter.   —David Levy 05:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, "doppelgänger" isn't greatly relevant, it just happened to be in RM. One of my own Talk:Édouard Nanny might be more relevant, since there the issue of inaccuracy (due to metal font) is more relevant. I also agree in that I'm not sure the wording requires adjustment. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't regard the "doppelgänger" example as relevant, as neither variant is inaccurate in the English language.
 * I'm not sure that the wording requires adjustment. If anything, perhaps we should change "often" to "sometimes" (to avoid implying that one approach takes precedence).  Apart from that, it seems fine.  Contrary to Blueboar's broad assertions, we do sometimes reject subjects' most common names on the basis that they're inaccurate.  For example, "Princess Diana" is far more common than "Diana, Princess of Wales" is.  But the former is inaccurate (based upon codified conventions), so it redirects to the latter.   —David Levy 05:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, "doppelgänger" isn't greatly relevant, it just happened to be in RM. One of my own Talk:Édouard Nanny might be more relevant, since there the issue of inaccuracy (due to metal font) is more relevant. I also agree in that I'm not sure the wording requires adjustment. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Iio did you read the section and the header link (Archive 34: Ambiguous or inaccurate at the start of that section)? If not, then please do so and then explain the comment "reverting PBS edit 'determined in' back to 'determined by' back to status quo - change of meaning" on this revert? -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is yet another example where IIO has started a new section (below several other topics) in what is a continuation of an existing discussion. The result is that we are now discussing this in two places, and the title of this section guarantees that it will not be easy to search for it later on..
 * Anyway, I would like to come back to the case of "scientifically inaccurate" as in the example of starfish. In the criteria section there is also this sentence: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."
 * It occurs to me that this is not very clear. What do we mean by the "the interests of readers"?
 * 1)Does it mean we use the titles that are most easily recognized by them?
 * 2)Or do we think it is in the interest of the reader to present them with the most scientifically accurate title?
 * Both can be constructed to be in the interests of readers (or general audience), but based on the rest of the policy I suspect that #1 is what we mean.
 * And which "specialists"? Linguists are also specialists. When we have article titles like Eiður Guðjohnsen, then haven't the interests of linguists (specialists) been put before the interests of the general audience?
 * I would like to see some discussion about that. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeSense64, there has already been discussion about that. You already made this point here which was picked up User D. E. Mophon with 2 RM discussions which came down on the side of WP:IRS, sources reliable for context (in this case in this case WP:IRS reliable for spelling). In ictu oculi (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * PBS, I am sorry but you do not have consensus to remove this text

This wording is important, it provides guidance, admission that "reliable sources" can include inaccurate names and that just because an inaccurate name is in a otherwise "reliable source" does not mean an inaccurate name should be used. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comma separation as a natural disambiguation
WP:PRECISION currently reads as if comma-separated disambiguation is not a natural disambiguation. It seems natural to me, and if natural disambiguation is generally preferred over parenthetical disambiguation, it seems that a comma-separated option would be preferable to a parenthetical option. Can we move the comma-separation to a subitem of natural disambiguation? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What to do here is not clear to me because comma separation is something of a hybrid. The distinction between natural and parenthetical disambiguation is whether the title is an alternative name for the subject because the most common or expected name cannot be used (natural), or an explanatory add-on to the subject to distinguish it that you wouldn't normally use (for which we mostly use parentheses). English Language and English People over English is "natural" because we use each of the expressions in everyday speech to describe the people and the language. There's no "disambiguator" involved. When we add (Mythology) to Mercury, we are placing an explanatory add-on. So when we say "(or sometimes after a comma)", we are saying this too is an explanatory "disambiguator" add-on—not purely a natural expression. But then, the places in practice where we use commas for this purpose are limited and often about things where one is more likely to use in everyday speech, but not all the time, such as adding a country to the distinguish a city from others. We might say Paris, Texas if the context wasn't already clear to someone we were talking to that Texas was the topic, and not the French city. So "Texas" in that title is closer to "natural" than the standard place where we use a parenhetical. On the other hand, it would be unlikely for us to say in everyday speech "Victoria Square, Adelaide, so "Adelaide" in that title is more of an add-on and thus an asterisk to parenthetical. So the distinction between comma separation being an "add-on" or natural is blurred.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any disambiguation (natural or parenthetical) must be used when the most common or expected name cannot be used. The most common or expected name is not natural disambiguation. Both involve an add-on. Like you observe, we might use the comma separation naturally in speech or writing. The parenthetical qualifier is not used except in technical situations (such as Wikipedia's technical limitation the keeps multiple articles from occupying the same title). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the term "natural" is controversial (it has different meaning in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, as explained below), we might use a different classification:
 * Integrated disambiguation
 * Separated disambiguation
 * parenthetical disambiguation
 * comma-separated disambiguation
 * Paolo.dL (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Bios, Non-Bios & Diacritics
We should consider a Wikipedia compromise on this topic. Have bio-articles with diacritics & have Non-bio articles 'without' diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting "Souffle", "Frappe coffee", and "Gottingen"?--Boson (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a very naive suggestion. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Boson - While I disagree with the premise, in the US I see it spelled "Souffle" and "Frappe coffee" all the time. Same with words like "Resume" or "Cafe." Can't say I've ever seen Gottingen in any context in the US but googling I do see the album Live in Gottingen, and in UK travel guides such as traveling to Gottingen. Certainly Göttingen is the preferred spelling in English, but not so your other examples. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? If you look at the first 10 books with previews in GBS, none have soufflé without the acute accent.  For the frappé it's a good mix, but frappé seems to be preferred.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This was the second hit I got for souffle. I got 28,000 hits with the diacritic out of 108,000, or 26 percent usage. I doubt if any diacritic has majority usage on English-language GBooks. Kauffner (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look, you'll see that the hit you linked does use the acute accent; in some styles, it is customary to omit such accents from capitals, as done there. Also, Google's OCR and indexing is not suitable for estimating the relative frequency of diacritics, as you can easily tell by looking. On the first page of your search with "diacritic out" there are still NONE without the acute accent (except one name not referring to a soufflé). Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't do a "diacritic out" search. I divided the "diacritic in" number by total results. Kauffner (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I see I misread; so did you find any without the accent? Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Kauffner wrote: "I doubt if any diacritic has majority usage on English-language GBooks."
 * I have not come across any examples so far. Even for frappe we have this:, the use of the diacritics version is dwarfed and also in a steady decline. It also occurs to me that we keep a lot of articles at loanwords, while the English translated version is more common. E.g Toilet water per . MakeSense64 (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again you are trying to draw conclusions from flaky OCR'd books. Look at the book images instead. Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At how many book images can a person reasonably look within a given amount of time? It's far simpler to use technology that can read all books, and even if it makes a few errors, that's not going to make a big difference within the bigger picture. By the way, when we look into gbook search or gscholar search, we are generally depending on just the same google ocr technology, except for the documents that already exist in electronic format (as is the case with more recent sources). And it's not as if ocr is so bad that it cannot record words like "toilet water" vs "eau de toilette".
 * The bias introduced by a human being able to look into just a small portion of English-language usage, is likely to be much bigger than the error introduced by well-developed technology looking into all books usage. Most objections to ocr seem to come from the "idontlikeit" corner. I have yet to see any source confirming the reservations that people have expressed. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the first page of 10 hits is often enough to tell you whether your interpretation is way off or not. Yours is way off.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any mathematician will be able to explain you how looking at the first 10 hits (out of a sample of maybe 1000s) will easily introduce an unintended bias, depending on what where the criteria that put these 10 hits on the first page. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that, without the help of any mathematician. I've explained before that capitalization is much more common on the first pages of hits, as the search seems to prefer terms found in titles and headings.  But still, if you look, you'll see that your conjectures about the counts relative to toilet water and souffle and such are just all wrong.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

From How to Build a Digital Library by Ian H. Witten, David Bainbridge, David M. Nichols: Unfortunately, the OCR operation is rarely presented with favorable conditions. Problems occur with proper names, with foreign names and words, and with special terminology—like Latin names for biological species. Problems are incurred with strange fonts, and particularly with alphabets that have accents or diacritical marks, or non-Roman characters. [...] These problems may sound arcane, but almost all OCR projects encounter them. The highest and most expensive level of accuracy attainable from commercial service bureaus is typically 99.995 percent, or 1 error in 20,000 characters of text [...] Each page is processed twice, by different operators, and the results are compared automatically. Any discrepancies are resolved manually. The book then estimates that uncorrected OCR generally costs 50 cents per page, while manual correction to an error rate of 3 incorrect characters per page costs $1.25 per page, and prices rise steeply after that. Errors are more likely than not on rare and foreign words, because of the heavy reliance on dictionary files. Google uses fully automatic OCR, and I have already given an example of how it reads a crystal-clear page. Xanthoxyl &lt; 07:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What Xanthoxyl and others say is correct.
 * But even with accurate OCR, the OCR cannot improve a low-quality source. Most English books on Google-Books are of sub-encyclopaedic quality in many ways, including orthography. @Kauffner wrote: "I doubt if any diacritic has majority usage on English-language GBooks." That is probably correct. If it were not for WP:IRS, the ability to distinguish which sources are reliable for what then François Hollande would be at "Francois Hollande," but he isn't because en.wikipedia's content-providers don't follow "reliable sources for other things but not French spelling" they follow reliable sources for the context, in this case reliable for French spelling.
 * This is expressed here: If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, [has something been removed here?] and so on).  but expressed badly because it doesn't express ''If there very many unreliable English-language sources for this context, but too few reliable English-language sources for this context, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on.
 * As a further point, why are the examples given not blue-linked? It is perfectly possible to bluelink a category category:German politicians, why not blue-link the category example given to enable the category example to be seen? Does anyone object to the examples being linked? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There should also be guidance somewhere helping people do meaning source comparisons, eg.
 * Evidence that 1000 sources have "Frappe coffee" 100 have Frappé coffee is meaningless, unless the 1000 sources are divided into those that are unreliable-for-purpose vs reliable-for-purpose. In this case all 1000 are simply unreliable-for-purpose, not reliable-for-purpose per WP:IRS.
 * Wheras a test that 100 sources have "Frappé coffee" and don't have "Latte" (Italian, no accent) is meaningful because the pool is only reliable-for-purpose sources.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Kauffner's conjecture "I doubt if any diacritic has majority usage on English-language GBooks" is already solidly refuted by "soufflé". It's hard to find any book that omits the acute accent on that one; "souffle" in English would suggest a very wrong pronunciation, and would be an obvious error to any half-serious editor.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you for real? I wonder if any "half-serious" editors work for AP. Kauffner (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but it's rather a different issue there. The AP wire service is widely reported to be limited to 7-bit ASCII encoding, and so their style guide is explicit about the impossibility of including diacritics.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you can always come up with a theory that allows to ignore any source that is inconvenient. The AP style guide is very widely used, a standard in the industry. It is not specific to a software setup that the AP had or has, and certainly not, "an obvious error to any half-serious editor." Kauffner (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dicklyon, yes you are correct. Correct use of French é is becoming the norm in many loandwords, personal names and place names. Though, I would guess more cookery books would be un-"reliable for the statement made" re. smörgåsbord. Ultimately we cannot treat every e.g. cookery book in English as automatically "reliable for the statement made" and an authority on Swedish spelling. (I think you'd agree with this?) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally the 3rd example missing on this page after category:Towns in Brazil, compared to WP:UE is category:Rivers of Turkey. These really should be blue-linked for convenience. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point about smorgasbord and reliability of cookbooks. I should think most books are reliable indicators of the spelling that they use, and that in aggregate they may be reliable indicators of usage in English.  But trying to assess that via google book search snippets is not likely to get one anywhere useful.  When you sort out the hits about cookery first, so that they're on-topic, then you sometimes do find the Swedish spelling (e.g. ).  But most English books that have adopted the term for other purposes drop the decorations.  I don't know of a better way to judge the usage than by studying the books; too much flaky counting is often seen in these parts.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I'd agree with those comments. My only point was a cookery book is more likely to get a French word right than a Swedish one. But ultimately en.wp isn't a cookery book anyway and doesn't have to imitate one. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

An important point... it is not necessarily for our titles to use the "right" or "correct" spellings and usage... correctness is not one of the principles or goals of this policy. Recognizability, on the other hand, is... If a non-english name or word is more recognizable to the average English language reader with a diacritic, then our title should include it. If that name or word is more recognizable without the diacritic, then our title should not include it. This means we are intentionally inconsistent as to whether our titles should or should not contain diacritics. One title will, another will not. For this reason, I strongly oppose any and all attempts to set a mandate on either the use or the non-use of diacritics. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Blueboar. That prompts a question; are you aware of any modern bio on en.wp (after say monarch Napoleon) where the title-name is spelled "inaccurately" because it is more "recognizable" to the average English language reader?
 * Btw. Do you object to proposal above to bluelink the examples in the article category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey to aid navigation? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know of multiple page move debates for bio articles that center on diacritics... debates where it has been argued that a title-name is spelled incorrectly because it lacks diacritics, and counter argued that the title-name is more recognizable without diacritics. It is a common debate on bio articles about Czech or Swedish NHL hockey players for example.  Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Blueboar, Yes, hockey names has a troubled history leading to the main editor behind the anglicisation of Czechs being blocked. Do you know of any non-Czech-player-in-Canada hockey bio on en.wp (after say monarch Napoleon) where the title-name is spelled "inaccurately" because it is more "recognizable" to the average English language reader? Also do you object to proposal above to bluelink the examples in the article category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey to aid navigation? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Franz Josef Strauss. We should not link to categories because the article titles in such categories may or may not have been decided upon using this policy. For example Iio I have been following what you say on pages such as Talk:John Márquez and you seem to have made up your mind at to what the "correct" spelling of a name and try to have that implemented whether or not reliable English language sources use that spelling. If a minority of editors, but a majority who express an opinion a specific page move request agree with your arguments, the page may end up at a name that does not follow this policy and so is not a good example to use on this policy page. The trouble with your arguments (which includes taking sentences out of context from guidelines and policies that support you POV) ignore usage in reliable sources, which contradicts both this policy and the three major content policies. While it is not possible to decide aesthetically on whether a word looks better with or without accent marks, editors in good faith can decide on the common usage in English language sources, and if there is no common usage on the steps that can be taken to decide on the most appropriate spelling to use. Why English language sources? Because this is an English language encyclopaedia. Some of the arguments you have put forward over recent weeks would have Germany under the name Deutchland and Spain under España, which by simply following usage in reliable English language sources prevents this from happening. Few if any editors would argue against Germany and Spain as the names to use for those countries in this encyclopaedia. However the names of two countries are open to debate and have had several RMs these are Burma and Côte d'Ivoire, and this is because reliable sources English language sources are split over the names.  I do not see the arguments that you put forwards for deciding the article title of a biography are justified for those biography articles any more than they are for deciding on the article titles for an article on a county. By following usage in reliable English language sources to decide on the article title, we are meeting this policy and those of WP:V and WP:NOR and I find it amazing that editors who would otherwise always follow usage in reliable sources, will wilfully ignore such sources if they think that the aesthetics of spelling used in reliable sources is not to their liking. -- PBS (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If by aesthetics of spelling you really mean the styling (e.g. of names with diacritics), then we do have a long tradition of following our own manual of style, rather than just copying whatever style we find most common in reliable sources. The Associated Press, for example, is widely regarded as a reliable source, but we don't use their styling because their newswire distribution is limited to 7-bit ASCII, no diacritics.  Sources that reproduce their content usually do not add back the diacritics, but some do; not because they think the AP is wrong as a source, but because they have a preferred style that says not to drop diacritics.  Deciding when diacritics are appropriate in WP is not a trivial matter; let's try not to reduce it to a counting argument, especially since the tools that get called up in support of counts are so inadequate to even that.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi PBS,
 * First are you happy with the indenting I am using here?
 * Second, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal comments such as "you seem to have made up your mind at to what the "correct" spelling of a name and try to have that implemented whether or not reliable English language sources use that spelling." - this is not the case, I have repeatedly referred yourself to WP:IRS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." the issue there, as I have explained at length three times is the choice between
 * (A) a letter from the office of John Márquez with his name as John Márquez in print and in signature
 * (B) a local newspaper website which cannot spell "Francois Hollande" (sic) correctly, and spells "Gabriel García Márquez" correctly in one article and "Gabriel Garcia Marquez" incorrectly in another.
 * Most en.wikipedia editors would apply WP:IRS to (A) and (B) and determine that under "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." (B) fails. an amateurish local newspaper with an inconsistent MOS is not "a reliable source for the statement being made." It is that simple for most editors editing BLPs.
 * Third, as far as "The Associated Press, for example, is widely regarded as a reliable source," the question is for what? The Associated Press is not regarded by anyone as a reliable source for foreign names.
 * Fourth, if "I find it amazing that editors who would otherwise always follow usage in reliable sources, will wilfully ignore such sources if they think that the aesthetics of spelling used in reliable sources is not to their liking." then I suggest that you please do what I politely suggested that you do 2 months ago and compare newspaper/GoogleBook popular MOS and en.wikipedia BLPs. Try category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey and ask yourself, are category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey following your understanding above "We should not link to categories because the article titles in such categories may or may not have been decided upon using this policy" - and see, have category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey been decided upon using your understanding of existing policy? Have those categories' titles been filled using low-MOS popular/majority/Associated Press type sources?
 * Note that apart from the old special letter Eszett ß which is not included, all the other diacritics are: Gerhard Schröder. Now, compare: do popular English sources use diacritics?
 * PBS - I really think it would be very helpful if you would please look at the categories before making any other comments, before starting any other topics, before picking new items from what is above. Please click on the categories and see if it is so - are they using more "European" spellings than can be found in the majority of popular English sources?
 * Thank you. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by European? Do you not consider English a European language? -- PBS (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Groan. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 21:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, groan. PBS, how many times have you asked this, and how many times have you been answered? PBS, would you please stop avoiding your own question - would you please click through on category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey and answer your own question re "We should not link to categories because the article titles in such categories may or may not have been decided upon using this policy" Have category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey been decided upon using your understanding of existing policy? Have those categories' titles been filled using low-MOS popular/majority/Associated Press type sources? As far as you can tell, yes or no? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Iio you ask "and how many times have you been answered" I don't think you have answered the question once (if you have then please provide a diff). If you have and you do think that English is a European language why do you write as it implies that you do not think English to be a European language. -- PBS (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is well-known that English is a European language (or at least it originated there), so "European spelling" has to mean Continental European spelling. Can we move on? Art LaPella (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PBS, firstly does my indentation meet with your approval?
 * Secondly I am not sure how I can go on a search for the various different times you have taken issue with the use of the word European name or Latin-alphabet European language to describe continental European languages. The first extensive uses of this argument are on Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_34.
 * For others, scroll down using "European" to find them. The As Xanthoxyl says "groan", as "Art LaPella" says "Can we move on?" Another example of Talk:John Márquez where you respond to the question of the reliablity of the San Francisco Chronicle website "Again The San Francisco Chronicle the reason it is not a reliable source for spelling of European names is there in the links given. Please click them. Or run any other European name on the website's search engine." by not clicking the examples given, not running a European name, but running a search on Tony Blair to see if Tony Blair has Spanish accents:
 * Now PBS, would you please address your own statement re. bluelinking category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey and answer your own question re "We should not link to categories because the article titles in such categories may or may not have been decided upon using this policy"
 * Are category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey at fully correctly spelled German, Portuguese and Turkish names, or are they in the kind of accent-stripped MOS we would find in sports websites and tabloid newspapers?
 * Please, PBS, would you please look at these cats and comment on how en.wp actually is. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey at fully correctly spelled German, Portuguese and Turkish names, or are they in the kind of accent-stripped MOS we would find in sports websites and tabloid newspapers?
 * Please, PBS, would you please look at these cats and comment on how en.wp actually is. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I for one have never understood this "recognizability" business. If Wikipedia has any expectation of being taken seriously as a serious encyclopedia, all names and words rendered in a Latin-based alphabet should be spelled correctly, with all appropriate diacritics. That's the magic of redirects - they automatically take the reader to the wanted page. I can think of only two exceptions to this: where a word or term is so thoroughly Anglicized that its spelling is changed in English usage, always omitting the diacritics; and people who have specifically and deliberately respelled their own names for professional reasons, in which case the properly spelled birth name should always be provided in the lead. Putting the correct spelling in the article title immediately gives the reader valuable information. Dumbing down entries for so-called "recognizability" is a joke, and makes us look ignorant. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "should be spelled correctly, with all appropriate diacritics" precisely if we follow usage in Reliable English language sources then all words will be as they usually appear in reliable English language sources with all appropriate diacritics, or are you suggesting that we do not follow English language practice? -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I had anticipated that question: "[as an exception], where a word or term is so thoroughly Anglicized that its spelling is changed in English usage, always omitting the diacritics". What, in turn, is a "reliable English language source"? Reliable sources are frequently inconsistent from one to another. Thus where English sources are inconsistent, use the diacritics rather than omitting them. Or, in lieu of having to check multiple sources before titling, include diacritics until it is demonstrated that English sources uniformly omit them. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PBS, the problem again here, as Milkunderwood expresses is what is a "reliable English language source" for context as per WP:IRS. In this RM Talk diff you respond to the invitation "Again The San Francisco Chronicle the reason it is not a reliable source for spelling of European names is there in the links given. Please click them. Or run any other European name on the website's search engine" by running a test on the name "Tony Blair" rather than a Spanish name with diacritics like José María Aznar. I ask again the same question I asked there "Is San Francisco Chronicle website a reliable source for the spelling of a European name. Yes/no?" 00:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC) and which you have ignored the end of the question "for spelling of European names" in your reply immediately underneath it 15:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) I have there now rephrased the question: is the San Francisco Chronicle a reliable source for the spelling of José María Aznar and François Hollande? yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not otherwise familiar with the Chronicle, but they appear to use a style guide that discards diacritics in the spelling of names. This would not mean the Chronicle is necessarily an unreliable source for other kinds of information, but it does mean their practice of name spelling cannot be followed. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears the New York Times is inconsistent, which in a way is even worse. They give "Jose Maria Aznar", but "José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero". Milkunderwood (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Milkunderwood, yes: I'm not sure the SF Chronicle even has a MOS, but does very rarely include some Spanish names in its "Arts" columns. The NY Times is supposed to be using an all-Spanish/French/German MOS for some years now. I guess some slipped through... Applying a consistent MOS is expensive (working with one foot in publishing I sympathize) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could others also comment on the proposal to bluelink category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey in WP:AT. Thanks! In ictu oculi (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Categories should not be linked into a policy page because the examples in such categories may or may not reflect usage as recommended by this policy. As article can be added and removed from a category at any time, such examples are not stable. -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PBS
 * I cannot see where you have addressed the question that has been asked above. How many times over the last 3 months have you been asked to look at how en.wikipedia articles actually are? You are still making comments on how en.wikipedia should be, but have responded to this by ignoring the question you yourself raised: Do the categories category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey reflect use of diacritics, yes/no.
 * As to whether they are stable or not, that can be reflected by adding an example in brackets category:German politicians (e.g. Gerhard Schröder), category:Cities in Brazil (e.g. São Paulo), category:Rivers of Turkey (e.g. Kızılırmak River) to demonstrate the point. In fact that's my proposal, to add in those as meaningful examples into WP:Article titles. Does anyone object to these as examples (recent chancellor, largest city, largest river)? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quibble: How about Üçköprü instead of Kızılırmak River? Kızılırmak River looks normal unless you notice that the "i"s aren't dotted. Art LaPella (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Art LaPella, yes, good idea. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So with Art LaPella's suggestion, can we include these examples? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No to linking to categories for the reasons I gave before. Examples such as São Paulo and similar do not make good examples because there has not been a comprehensive debate with evidence of usage in reliable English language sources since that requirement was added to this policy. the last debate over the name was in 2005 (see Talk:São Paulo/Archive Move debate and is (by the standards of this policy as it is now) a less than rigorous examination of English language reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PBS, sorry but can you please link to me to where you have addressed the question you yourself raised: Do the categories category:German politicians, category:Towns in Brazil, category:Rivers of Turkey reflect use of diacritics, yes/no.?
 * Second as for São Paulo there has not been a comprehensive debate since one is not needed; no en.wp editor has proposed it should be at Sao Paolo. Do you consider Sao Paolo is an English exonym for São Paulo? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone else who shares PBS objection to bluelinking these categories? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bluelinking to categories is principally incorrect because, as stated already by PBS, categories may or may not reflect recommended policy usage and even if they do they can easily diverge in time as categories are not content controlled based on policy compliance. IIO, perhaps you can have the courtesy of actually responding to that specific argument. I see distractions but no clear response. --Wolbo (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Wolbo,
 * Please see above. I had the courtesy of actually responding to that specific argument above on 01:37, 17 June 2012 by the reply "As to whether they are stable or not, that can be reflected by adding an example in brackets category:German politicians (e.g. Gerhard Schröder), category:Cities in Brazil (e.g. São Paulo), category:Rivers of Turkey (e.g. Kızılırmak River) to demonstrate the point. In fact that's my proposal, to add in those as meaningful examples into WP:Article titles. Does anyone object to these as examples (recent chancellor, largest city, largest river)?"
 * Perhaps you missed the reply. Anyway, as you are here, and as you are one of those who appears to not be fully enthusiastic about en.wp's use of European accented names, may I ask you two questions:
 * Q1. The same question as I have asked PBS and MakeSense64: Can you please name 1 non-stagename/emigrant BLP article where the native name contains accents on en.wp where you are happy with the way it is.
 * Q2. As I note that you are Dutch, how about the use of Dutch diacritics? André Rieu, Léon Frissen, Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink, André van der Louw, W. R. van Hoëvell, René de Clercq, Michaël Zeeman, Henriëtte Bosmans, Matwé Middelkoop ... are you happy with these Dutch people being at Dutch names even though otherwise reliable English sources often omit their accents BBC website "Violinist Andre Rieu (sic) makes pop chart history with album" In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Bio articles
I've found that Bio articles which have diacritics sources & non-diacritics sources for their name, tend to be titled with diacritics -- particulary if the subject is French, Czech, Polish, Slovak, Swede, Finns etc etc. Why is this so? GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi GoodDay
 * I'm glad you're asking this. They don't all have. French, Czech, Polish, Slovak, Swede, Finns (i.e. Latin alphabet) Bio articles pre the Reformation often don't, and up to the Napoleonic era maybe they do or don't. It seems to be only from around 1850 that those Bios consistently do (unless there is a change of nationality or stagename involved). This may be related to the 1848 Spring of Nations and that national identity is more reflected in sources, from that point onwards. Particulary with French, Czech, Polish, Slovak, Swede, Finns (i.e. Latin alphabet) BLPs. The only living people whom en.wp deliberately deprives of their national identity are a few of those who play tennis Nikola Čačić and hockey Dominik Halmoši, where there are 1 or 2 editors who want to give them "common English names" (a description not mine, meaning the spelling found on sports-websites, tabloid newspapers, and similar sources) "Sasa Hirszon is how his name is spelled in English." etc. This appears never to happen outside tennis and hockey, for some reason. Why tennis and ice-hockey? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that wp may title an article without diacritics does not "deprive" anyone of their "national identity". Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Blueboar, let's assume you're right for a second, firstly one would have to ask why, if that's the case, why is this practice described in Talk discussions as giving "common name in English" "English names for the English Wikipedia" and so on rather than "giving someone their accent-free French name" "giving someone their haček-free Czech name" etc. Any answer on that? And secondly anyone is welcome to try de-accenting foreigners' names in the real world. It's one thing to do it on Wikipedia, it's something else to go down to the high street with a bucket of white paint and paint out the accents on a French or "przekreślone L" on Polish shopkeeper's front, then tell him "It's your English name" or "It's your diacritic free Polish name." Be interesting to see someone try that and then report back here to WP:AT how that goes. I'd like to assume that all those who object to François Hollande's cédille and want to turn the name into Francois Hollande do it from the best multicultural motives, but it may not always be how it perceived by those on the de-accented end. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Blueboar, you may be unaware of this but a third point: A frequent argument on RMs every month at en.wp is that when someone comes to America - like Martina Navratilova - then losing the Czech accent is part of becoming American. Same with other English speaking countries. Anglicizing surnames is part of the process of gaining a new identity, both historically and to a lesser extent today. If you don't believe me, check where en.wp articles are. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Non Bios articles
Likewise, I've found the same trend with Non-Bios articles - such as places. Why are diacritics sources given preference over non-diacritics sources? GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably because if both forms appear in English sources, editors prefer to use the one that is more complete and correct relative to the original. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes the diacritics sources more correct, though? GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Dicklyon's phrase was "correct relative to the original", that is, the diacritic would be correct if we were writing in the original language. That isn't the same as correct in English. When an English source omits diacritics, it could be because that is how we write the name in English, like Aristotle not Aristoteles, or it could be that the diacritics were omitted just because they were too difficult or impossible to type. We seldom know. Art LaPella (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I was just trying to describe why editors probably prefer the diacritics when both forms appear in English sources; I wouldn't say that either is more correct or wrong in English in such cases. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, I suspect the answer to this is Lonely Planet. In the 1970s guides like Frommers used to spell towns like Mariánské Lázně as "Marianske Lazne" (if they even had guidebooks to Eastern Europe pre-1990), nowadays all guidebooks spell Latin-alphabet towns fully. The accuracy for towns is much higher than for people. No guidebook will misspell or "English name" a non-notable Czech village, but they might well misspell or "English name" the Czech president. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, only the most well-known people and places will have Anglicizations of their names widely accepted. Those are mostly the ones we argue about.  Plus the tennis players and such, who may not be so famous but are known in English only through their names as promulgated through the diacritic-free tennis associations.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These languages spell phonetically, and diacritics determine pronunciation. For example, Łódź is not pronounced "lodz", as it would be without diacritics, but "wootch". The markings are not decorative. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 21:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, well said, they add information with no loss of meaning to those who do not understand them (and every English speaker understands é in Beyoncé or René. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Miriam Webster, the English language pronunciation of Lodz is "Loodz" (with a distinct "L" sound and the rest sounding like the words huge or Stooge). Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't surprise me, I have found Merriam-Webster (Lodz which gives geographical name \ˈlüj, ˈlädz\ = wrong) increasingly at odds with reality in pronunciation of some East European place names since the Berlin Wall came down and EU enlargement. Maybe M-W is struggling to keep up. The BBC pronounces names like Łódź correctly, as "Wootch" in this case, as search "Łódź pronounced" in Google Books shows Lonely Planet, Frommers, etc all being higher quality sources than M-W in this area. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Who are we to declare that a major US dictionary is "incorrect". Indeed, we need to get away from the whole "X is correct" argument.  Article titles do not need to be "correct". Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi BlueBoar, who are to declare that Lonely Planet, Frommers, etc are all incorrect and that M-W is correct. As for "we need to get away from the whole "X is correct" argument" - that's your view. I'm not one of the editors who believes that Wikipedia should knowingly reproduce crap. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah... you see I don't say that Lonely Planet, Frommers, etc are incorrect? I allow for the fact that there could be more than one "correct" pronunciation in the English language (English is weird like that).  I say that both Mirriam-Webster and Frommers are correct (note, this is what we actually do in the Lodz/Łódź article... we list all of the alternative pronunciations, and do not label one as "correct" and the others as "incorrect").
 * We do the same when it comes to words that can be spelled in different ways (such as aluminum vs alumininium). We list the different spellings as alternatives to the one we pick as our article title, and do not call one "correct" or the other "incorrect".
 * Unfortunately we can not be as neutral when it comes to choosing an article title... we can not list multiple spellings in an article Title. So we compromise by going with which ever one will be most recognizable and natural to the average English language reader... we determine this by finding the WP:COMMONNAME... by looking at the sources and see if one spelling is used significantly more often that the others.  Now... I have no idea whether "Łódź" or "Lodz" is used more often in the English language sources (I suspect "Lodz"... but I could be wrong)... but which ever one is used more often will be the most recognizable.  That's the one that should be the article title. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, regardless of what we think about the correctness of sources (or lack thereof), there's WP:DUE ("Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."). Of course, the loophole there is to declare that any sources with which we disagree are unreliable in their specific statement at issue. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, pronunciation is something of a side issue here. We could debate whether every mispronunciation of a place-name deserves inclusion in a lede: " Leicester (pronounced ligh-sesta by some Americans), " or "Arkansas (pronounced ar-kansas by some British)," etc. but since this is WP:AT lets stick to titles. In the case of Łódź it has a complete Polish spelling in the title because like Piotrków Trybunalski‎ but unlike Warsaw and Cracow it doesn't have a "English name". Not a great deal else to discuss. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It may not have a distinctly separate English "name"... but it does have two distinct spellings that are accepted in the English language - one with diacritics (Łódź), and one without diacritics (Lodz). Both spellings are used by English language sources... and it isn't just ignorant Americans or Englishmen who use the version without diacritics (for example: the University of Lodz, a Polish source, spells its name without diacritics on their English Language website).  Now, I am not arguing that we should change the current title of our article, I am simply using it as an example to point out the flaw in the "diacritics are correct" argument ... My point is simply that the English language can have more than one "correct" spelling for things... and spelling something without diacritics is recognized as being "correct" in the English Language.  And... when faced with two correct spellings for something, we resolve the question by seeing which is more commonly used.  Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, as we know websites are not WP:RS for spelling foreign place names and not followed on en.wp. And to use your phrasing "ignorant Americans or Englishmen" then that website may have been subconsciously subcontracted to webdesigner who will use an Anglo MOS to attract "ignorant Americans or Englishmen" to do courses. We don't know. We do know that Gdańsk has Gdańsk and Danzig but not Gdansk (sic). The accentless Gdańsk doesn't exist as an exonym as Warsaw or Cracow. Neither is Lodz an exonym for Łódź, it's a typographic convenience. Someone who puts "Gdańsk (English Gdansk)" is just being the sort of person who puts "Gdańsk (English Gdansk)"... In ictu oculi (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Iio you write "websites are not WP:RS for spelling foreign place names" Really? What about for example U.S. Board on Geographic Names: Foreign Names or The British Foreign office: travel and living abroad to name but two? The guideline Naming conventions (geographic names) is laced with links to online sites, so what is the source for your assertion? -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello PBS,
 * 1. Can you please link to where you have answered my question about naming 1x en.wp article that you are agreed with where it is. (Remember that we are looking for 1x common or garden example of an accented Latin-alphabet European living person name, not monarchs, not stage-names, nor ß, nor names which do not have accents originally like Tony Benn or Tony Blair).
 * 2.
 * Yes I wrote "Blueboar, as we know websites are not WP:RS for spelling foreign place names and not followed on en.wp." and the websites you have produced sure enough show "websites are not WP:RS for spelling foreign place names and not followed on en.wp". Evidently a comparisn of those websites and en.wikipedia shows that what I said to Blueboard was correct. en.wikipedia does not follow the MOS of www.fco.gov.uk and earth-info.nga.mil websites. (Perhaps since WP:IRS requires "the best such sources" not "the worst such sources."?)
 * 1.
 * Okay so having dealt with www.fco.gov.uk and earth-info.nga.mil back to question 1. You have said you do not agree with the examples of categories or articles named above. Also going back in WP:AT edit history you made similar objection to *Pelé is not a good example as "Pele" without the squiggle is the common English spelling) and "Replaced with words taken from WP:UE that are clearly English usage, see talk page and the problems with Edvard Beneš)" etc. But in 2012 Pelé is still at Pelé, Edvard Beneš is still at Edvard Beneš. The place names of en.wikipedia.org are all at what you call "squiggles." Hence the need for question 1. Please link to where you have cited 1x category:Living people article you agree with. I am asking because I cannot find where you have answered, and I genuinely want to understand your edits to WP:AT over the last 5 years. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not initially write "en.wikipedia does not follow the MOS of www.fco.gov.uk and earth-info.nga.mil websites" what you wrote was "websites are not WP:RS for spelling foreign place names". It is true that "en.wikipedia does not follow the MOS of www.fco.gov.uk and earth-info.nga.mil websites" what it follows the WP:AT policy, and under that policy both www.fco.gov.uk and earth-info.nga.mil would be considered reliable sources to be considered when considering an article title. That some articles titles are decide upon without following AT policy is unfortunate, but over time such anomalies will probably sort themselves out. -- PBS (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi PBS,
 * 1. What I wrote, twice, was "Blueboar, as we know websites are not WP:RS for spelling foreign place names and not followed on en.wp." It would help if you would not truncate other users' sentences when citing them. This remains what I said, and remains correct. The two websites you gave as examples www.fco.gov.uk and earth-info.nga.mil are perfect examples of what I said to Blueboar:


 * Aside from the fact that www.fco.gov.uk apparently believe that there are two towns in Poland called "Poznan" for which of these towns apart from the exonym Warsaw does en.wp follow? In fact can you give 1x example of any non-exonym accented European town article on en.wp which follows www.fco.gov.uk and earth-info.nga.mil rather than following the native spelling? You may wish to start with Category:Cities and towns in Poland.
 * 2. and,
 * You say "That some articles titles are decide upon without following AT policy is unfortunate, but over time such anomalies will probably sort themselves out." You said the similar on either WT:MOSPN or WT:AT back 2006 or so. I wasn't here then. So in the meantime, what has happened since then? I ask again, can you please cite 1x a non-stagename/emigrant/monarch living person with a Latin-alphabet accented name who is at the correct title on en.wp in your view? Just please cite 1x article that isn't per Pelé, or Edvard Beneš, "anomalies will probably sort themselves out"
 * Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Consistency" criterion being trumped by ENGVAR and RETAIN
Am I the only person who sees a problem with having article titles on topics and subtopics spelled differently? Why do we have windshield but windscreen wiper? Why do we have tire and snow tires but rain tyre and slick tyre? Not only do this dichotomies violate our consistency criterion, but they make it hard for readers and editors to correctly predict the title of a related article, and they make it appear that we lack professional editing standards. Frankly, it makes the encyclopedia appear unprofessional to have spelling on related topics mixed like this. Powers T 14:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ENGVAR and RETAIN apply within articles, they do not require separate articles to follow the same standard. Nobody needs to "predict" an article's title, redirects exist to make snow tyre and windshield wiper work as valid links. Roger (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well we could move snow tire to 1239458671230 and it would work just as well thanks to redirects, but we don't, right? One of our five bedrock naming criteria is "consistency", and that's being violated willy nilly.  And if ENGVAR and RETAIN only apply within articles, then why are they being used to justify abrogating the consistency criterion?  Powers T 18:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no problem here. Wikipedia is not going to be Britipedia or Yankeepedia any time soon. We accept that there are spelling differences, and titles will be various. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? I accept no such thing.  We should all want Wikipedia to be as professional looking as possible.  Powers T 17:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We want Wikipedia to be professional looking? What does that mean? That we should ignore British spelling and move everything to US spelling? Or is it the other way, dump US spelling for British? I challenge you to indicate which one of those is more "professional looking". Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's a ridiculous oversimplification of my position. I suppose if anything, I'd suggest that ENGVAR and RETAIN be clarified to indicate that they apply collectively to groups of articles, rather than to single articles.  I don't care if we use "color" in some places and "honour" in others (as long as they're consistent within any given article), but all articles with "color" or "colour" in the title should use the same variant.  Powers T 19:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me put it to you this way: Why do you think we have a rule that says that whichever variant of English is chosen, it must be consistent throughout an article? Powers T 19:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's difficult enough to select a spelling style for certain articles; groups of articles will be exponentially more difficult. There's a phrase I've heard: "Do you want to die on that hill?" It pertains to choosing your battles. I don't think this battle is the one in which you will want to invest your energy. If I'm wrong, good luck. I'll remember you to the folks back home. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So now you're saying you agree with me, you just don't think it's worth the effort? Powers T 15:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree this makes us look pretty clowny, although RETAIN does that already without this issue. I'd rather we just picked British or US or something, but I realize this is unlikely to happen, so I try to worry about other things instead. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of Disambiguation term...
Example: Let's say that there is a famous television show called Muke. There are 26 episodes in the First season, which are named A, B, C, .., X, Y and FlanaFlana666. Obviously the first 25 episodes would have their article's named A (Muke Episode), B (Muke Episode), etc. But it seems inappropriate to have the last episode be called FlanaFlana666 (Muke Episode) because FlanaFlana666 would be adequate. But there are others who work on articles about Muke who want all of the articles to be consistent in name. What is the proper Wikipedia policy to reference to get the FlanaFlana666 (Muke Episode) moved to FlanaFlana666, or is this a case where consistency would lead to an IAR situation? Naraht (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Naraht: WP:PRECISION is the proper reference to get the article moved from the overly qualified title to the correctly qualified title. Forcing non-natural qualifiers on the titles that don't need them is a "foolish consistency". -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * When disambiguation is not needed, there's no need to be consistent. See above for an example in which consistency is not foolish.Paolo.dL (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

common vs. official country name discussion
The issue of using the common English name vs. the official name of a country for the article title is being discussed at this move proposal: Requested Move: Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Groan not again! -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

California Adventure
Disney California Adventure Park was just moved to Disney California Adventure rather than to California Adventure for what I think are reasons not supported by WP:AT WP:CRITERIA. My main concern is that as long as the title remains inconsistent with WP:AT WP:CRITERIA, it will remain unstable. Why not just fix it now? Discuss here: Talk:Disney_California_Adventure. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You want to propose a move because if you don't someone might propose a move? Good thinking.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't think the last two words were constructive ... Art LaPella (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry. I meant bad thinking.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like that better. Art LaPella (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect to any proposed move, A → B, the following should always be considered: With the article at A, we know we have a WP:CRITERIA based A → B argument, but let's imagine the article was at B, would there be a reasonable WP:CRITERIA based B → A argument?  If not, then the A → B move should be supported. And that's what we have here.  There are good WP:CRITERIA based  arguments to move Disney California Adventure to California Adventure, but if the article was at California Adventure, what might be a good WP:CRITERIA based argument to move it to Disney California Adventure?  There isn't one, so the article should be moved.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed naming conventions and guidelines
I have taken the step of reporting a user to ANI for creating a redirect "WP:Naming conventions (French)" in contravention of the section Proposed naming conventions and guidelines. In the ANI I have proposed that the redirect be deleted or redirected to Naming conventions (use English). My preference is to delete it as it does not contribute any guidance that does not exist in Naming conventions (use English).

WP:Naming conventions (French) is a particularly harmful redirect because it redirects to a MOS page not a Naming convention and to a section Accents & ligatures bypassing the section General rules which advises "The most general rule of the Wikipedia is that editors should use the most common form of the name or expression used in English (WP:ENGLISH)." (bold emphasis as it is in the guideline). This means under a cursory glance the redirect is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions (French) has been deleted as the creator agreed to deletion -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi PBS
 * There are number of problematic aspects to this.
 * (1) As other admins commented, you appear to be attempting to resort to ANI for a content dispute, in this case the content of your preferred wording to the diacritics section here. May I ask have you resorted to ANI before when encountering disagreement on the Talk page of WP:AT?
 * (2) The main problem however is your view on diacritics, and your history of edits to WP:AT being in opposition to use of diacritics in en.wikipedia article titles. Can you please link to where you have answered the question I have given you upwards of a dozen times to cite 1x article that you agree with (and hopefully there is no need to repeat the caveats "modern non-monarch, non-WP:STAGENAME, non-ß").
 * (3) Wikipedia does have WP:Naming conventions (language xxx) for some other languages, would you kindly explain why some are acceptable and some are not. And in doing so please provide a link for the approved process for creating e.g. WP:Naming conventions (French). I am more than happy to follow the process, if it helps Users easily find guidance conforming with existing consensus guidelines such as Manual of Style/France & French-related. Where is it the relevant process described?
 * (4) As regards the shortcut you deleted, for the record, when you deleted it, it said


 * That is what the link had, now it has you using your own admin tools to delete the page:


 * Should your use of admin tools when "involved" in defending your own POV on French diacritics also go to WP:ANI? (I'm not saying it should, I'm asking you why it shouldn't)
 * (3) You still have not explained why your definition of "reliable" appears to be different from the definition in Identifying reliable sources? Do you accept the definition in WP:IRS or not?
 * (4) Manual of Style/France & French-related does not deal directly with naming conventions, Manual of Style/France & French-related does, so why you are concerned about linking to one rather than other doesn't make much sense. But frankly this is a minor issue as to where on Manual of Style/France & French-related a convenience redirect would link. WP:MOS-FR WP:FRMOS link to the top. I don't care about this.
 * (5) Back to WP:AT, we are still discussing what can be done to improve:


 * Evidently one thing stands out - there is no example of a personal name in "but Nuremberg, delicatessen, Florence, and Lech Walesa (sic, redirect to Lech Wałęsa) " I mention Lech Walesa because of your own comments on the (failed) Lech Wałęsa RM. But it could be your comments Talk:Gerhard_Schröder cf Talk:François_Mitterrand
 * The basic issue seems to be this, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to believe, again correct me if I'm wrong because it is difficult to find out what you believe when you don't answer questions, that because e.g. an English newspaper, say the Daily Express, or a mass-market paperback on Googlebooks, has "Lech Walesa" "Gerhard Schroder" or "Francois Mitterrand" that Daily Express, or that mass-market paperback on Googlebooks qualifies as a "reliable" source under the section of WP:IRS:


 * In surveying your, and in fairness some others', edits to WP policy and guideline pages since 2006 this seems to be the nub of the problem, and the nub of the dislocate or lag between the ambiguous wording in these pages and the reality of where 100,000s of European latin-alphabet bios and geo articles actually are titled on en.wp.
 * (6) If I make a comment, I find discussion with you slightly difficult because you seem rarely if ever to answer questions, they seem to pile up unanswered. I would now like to ask a direct question of an example relating to the nub of the issue, and I would like you to answer it. Question: Do you consider The Daily Express a WP:IRS source reliable for the statement being made concerning the spelling of the names François Mitterand, François Hollande, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing Jean-Luc Mélenchon? This question can be answered by a simple yes/no. Or please give yes/no then expand, but please do not post "tenacious" (your own word) quantities of text without addressing directly a simple yes/no question. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Deciding on an article title: Does anybody know or care about this guideline?
If you look at Page view statistics on the History tab, you will see that:

Manual of Style has had 77042 pageviews in the last 60 days.

Categorization has had 33652 pageviews in the last 60 days.

Categorization/Naming seems to overlap with Categorization and has had only 18 pageviews in the last 60 days.

Why are so few people aware of this guideline, Article titles, which has had only 10557 pageviews in the last 60 days?

Surely the major reason is that anyone can create an article without any suggestion that they review this Article title guideline, as discussed here starting with the scenario "If you search Wikipedia for an article ABCDEF..." This is surely a problem that could easily be fixed. Does anybody care?

The same "nobody knows about it/them" problem seems to apply to the Wikipedia Regional MOS guides.

Manual of Style/Japan-related articles has had 1724 pageviews in the last 60 days.

Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles has had 1430 pageviews in the last 60 days.

Manual of Style/France & French-related has had 1399 pageviews in the last 60 days.

Manual of Style/Korea-related articles has had 1311 pageviews in the last 60 days.

Manual of Style/China-related articles has had 604 pageviews in the last 60 days.

Manual of Style/Singapore-related articles has had 596 pageviews in the last 60 days.

I tried to add a link from MOS:Foreign terms to Regional MOS guides, but this was reverted for no reason other than it lacked an edit summary.

Surely the spirit of Wikipedia is to cooperate and communicate with other editors, to enable and encourage, in order to help Wikipedia to succeed, not to secretly revert and sabotage other editors' work regardless of its merit? Surely Wikipedia should not be a dysfunctional place like Dilbert's company, where it is not fun to contribute or participate in any way? LittleBen (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The number of page views may or may not be a good indicator of whether people care about the guidelines. Another gauge might be the number of talk page edits that mention them. In any case, this is just the "titles" guideline and I'm not sure what statistics about other guidelines are telling us about this one. Please tell us what these numbers mean to you and how you arrived at your conclusions. I have left you a note on your talk page about issues you have raised that don't concern article titles.  Joja  lozzo  16:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi LittleBenW, personally I'd agree with you that the content on this page could do with improvement (or reversion of some unhelpful edits which have 'sat' here). I'm not totally surprised by your page view figures, and I wonder if WP:AT itself contributes to that. As regards your edit, it wasn't unreasonable, but it was reverted by one of the most sensible contributors to guidelines, Dicklyon, and as the tag at the head of this Talk page (why on Talk page not article????) says edits to this page should be discussed first. I'd support your edit, perhaps in more concise form. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * NB before Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles moves off the head of talk into archive, can we please make sure wording has been restored to status quo 23 March. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Deciding on an article title: Consistency
In the section "Deciding on an article title", under Consistency, I added:

For consistency, it is also advisable to do an Advanced Search to check if some or all of the alternative terms are already used as Wikipedia Category names.

but it was reverted. I do not see that this addition is other than helpful. A basic Wikipedia search does not turn up Wikipedia Category names, and it is not obvious how to search Category names. LittleBen (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I reverted this somewhat longer bit that you added:


 * Where there are several possible alternatives, search engines can be used to research which is most frequently used, as discussed in the section below. For consistency, it is also advisable to do an Advanced Search to check if some or all of the alternative terms are already used as Wikipedia Category names.


 * because it seems like an unnecessary addition to a section about the principles for choosing a title. To introduce a counting approach and emphasize commonness here is counterproductive, as well as duplicative.  I'm not sure what the category thing is about.  Let's see if others can see what it's helpful.  Also, it wasn't "under Consistency" in the sense that I think you meant, though it was below it on the page.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, I see from this that you weren't even aware of the existence of this policy page until today. So it's not surprising, perhaps, that you don't know that editing policy pages without discussion first, and/or without a good edit summary, is quite often going to be met with pushback.  We don't want lots of willy-nilly changes in important project-wide policy and guideline pages.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My reason for trying to find guidelines on article naming, and guidelines on how to research the most appropriate naming, comes from seeing articles named, renamed, and moved willy-nilly — without adequate research. Article names and category names are frequently inconsistent because editors don't adequately research them before naming or moving articles. In my experience, most editors don't know how to search for existing category names. For an example of the problem, see here. This is why I attempted to explain that it's important to research category names and ensure consistency—and link to an explanation of how to do this, since it's not obvious and not widely known. (My Category naming edit was also reverted). LittleBen (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Deciding on an article title: Recognizability
The section Common names expands on Recognizability in the section "Deciding on an article title" by explaining that "Titles are often proper nouns, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. ... In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, ... a search engine may help... (F)or detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test.

So by adding :

Where there are several possible alternatives, search engines can be used to research which is most frequently used, as discussed in the section below.

I am attempting to link Recognizability to the section that explains how to determine this.

I can't see how this could be construed as anything other than a useful, good-faith edit that is self-evident and doesn't require lengthy discussion. LittleBen (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can agree your edits are in good faith. But if it's self-evident, we don't need it.  A bit of discussion of what problem you're trying to solve and whether this is a good solution is presently in order.  At present, I don't even understand what you mean by "I am attempting to link Recognizability to the section that explains how to determine this."  A common problem and topic is discussion in titles in recent years is the use and abuse of search engine counts, and the over-emphasis on "most common" as opposed to the other important criteria.  You'll get pushback (from me at least) on edits that seem to endorse that direction.    Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not normal talk-page etiquette to change the time/date of your sig to be later than my reply. Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You might at least look at the link that I added before removing it. Surely it supports your viewpoint. It's just below this. LittleBen (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * LittleBen, I don't think anyone understands what you are trying to do here. The link you put in seems to be a "how-to" essay, but you have put in on a policy page.  Some people might think this will make it a requirement for all 3,993,843 articles in Wikipedia, not to mention the bots. A lot of people agree with you that the process for writing article titles needs a better explanation; I agree with that too.  If you would explain what you are trying to do here, as many people have asked you to do, I'm sure you would find people who are willing to help you. Neotarf (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So tell me then, where in Wikipedia is the term Recognizability defined, and the criteria for Recognizability discussed? If it's not related to anything else on Wikipedia then it's an orphan, and doesn't belong. I have attempted to link it to the Common name section, which says that "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. I have also attempted to link it to Notability in the search research guidelines article which is already linked from way down the bottom of the Common name section on the same Article titles page, and which describes how to research the best-compromise terminology, based on Wikipedia's criteria. It even provides a tutorial. LittleBen (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ben, I did look at the link. But the idea of enshrining such a connection between "recognizability" and "search engines" in a general section on goals seemed very wrong to me.  Has anyone supported this?  I have no objection to the search engine how-to itself, but I don't like the implication that recognizability can be assessed by the use of search engines (even though that's one tool that is often used, and often poorly as the linked page points out).  Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As I have already pointed out several times, the Common name section already links to these search guidelines. If there is no way of assessing "recognizability", and no guidelines as to what constitutes "recognizability" anywhere in Wikipedia, then surely the term should be removed or changed to something like "notability". LittleBen (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it already links it where it says "for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test." I have no problem with that.  But it seems much less appropriate in the bulleted list titled "Wikipedia article titles have the following characteristics".  Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So how would you address the problems with using the poorly-defined or undefined term "recognizability", then? LittleBen (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what problem you mean, or what definition you'd prefer, or how using a search engine addresses that. Personally, I'd take it back a few years to where it said something like "Article names should be recognizable to readers" or "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize".  See User:Dicklyon/Whither Recognizability?. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ben's link and sentence was restored by Born2cycle, apparently by accident; so I reverted that revert. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and you again reverted the link to the Regional MOS. Do you have any logical reason for repeatedly reverting this? LittleBen (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

LittleBenW's link
Why should the recognizability provision link to the search-engine how-to page here? This only reinforces the flaky notion that recognizability can be determined by search engines, a notion which routinely causes a lot of trouble. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have answered this once again at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Article titles. LittleBen (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor who inserted it expressed concern that the page did not have enough page views. It seems to be a good faith edit, but I don't think anyone understands it. Further explanation was requested, but none was given. Neotarf (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely it's obvious that all the data about page views refers to the Regional MOS, which have recently been linked from the appropriate foreign terms sections of Wikipedia MOS but are not linked from Article titles because you (Neotarf) removed the link for no good reason. LittleBen (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh, I didn't just remove one link, I removed everything that was disputed. The edits were going back and forth, adding and removing the same stuff, sort of a "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is" circular discussion. Plus it was too hard for observers (all the people who have to keep up on the policy for editing or for programming bots), to follow what was going on from the edit summaries.  The guidelines for discussion say BRD BOLD, revert, discuss cycle not BRRRRRR. Time for discussion. Neotarf (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ben, sorry, I had forgotten we had started a discussion section on this above last week; I'll take it back there. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Last stable version?
Several sections seem to be going through rapid changes; I have reverted back to what seems to be the last undisputed edit by Paolo.dL on 19:09, 7 July 2012‎. Sorry, I didn't see a discussion had already been started before writing "please discuss" in the edit summary, but no matter, it seems there is little agreement as yet. Neotarf (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle will likely dispute that version again, since it includes the positive statement about precision: "precise enough to indicate accurately the topical scope of the article". Dicklyon (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let him give some rationales. There are two things wrong with what Born2cycle has put up. One is that the wording is awkward. I don't know what it is, consonants, maybe? Parallel construction?  But it just doesn't read smoothly; read like policy. When you read it, the words pull at you, snag at you.  I don't know how to explain it any better than that, maybe there is a name for it somewhere.  The second thing is that it doesn't explain what he thinks it explains.  He has an idea of what he wants to express, but it isn't coming out in his explanation.  He writes phrases that mean something to him, but they aren't global, they aren't universally understood by everything to mean the same thing. When he gives examples, they often illustrate the complete opposite of how I interpreted his explanation. His examples I think are very good, very explanatory.  And he has some good points about naming conventions for American cities, which seem very odd to me. (Primary topic based on sports teams??!?).
 * Also, I see a dynamic tension between the naming principles. Some people prefer titles that describe the subject thoroughly, some prefer minimalist titles that are merely able to function with the programming. There is no consensus about this, and I think the policy will have to reflect this. I don't see a problem with inconsistent naming criteria, if the community itself is inconsistent.  Neotarf (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can create a better wording, or favor a better past version for a logical reason, then say so. But simply reverting other people's edits for no real reason is not constructive, and does not help Wikipedia. Any professional copywriter will tell you that a slogan or an ad or article title has to be as brief and focused as possible — because people can't remember long rambling slogans, titles, or articles. If you haven't heard of this then you should read Strunk & White.


 * Surely it can only be described as disruptive editing to repeatedly revert a link from "For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see..." in the Foreign names and anglicization section to the Regional MOS. It's surely obvious from the pageview data quoted previously that few people are finding the Regional MOS. LittleBen (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ben, please see my explanation above about WP:BRD. There is no point in several people just replacing the same texts over and over without discussion. Best to have the discussion in one place instead of spread out all over— Dicklyon has indicated he is willing to discuss the differences on the same thread as before. Neotarf (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit. See WP:EDSUM  Neotarf (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with WP:BRD. Regional MOS are Wikipedia Manual of Style guides. If you and Dicklyon know nothing about these, then your continuing to revert a single link to them can surely only be described as disruptive editing. They have already (recently) been linked to from the main WP MOS (after equally meaningless reversions). These Regional MOS are virtual orphans, and very difficult to find, as I have already explained repeatedly. LittleBen (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't revert to the stable version of the precision wording. I just did.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does this matter?
We should consider the reader first and foremost, and I would contend that, providing adequate redirect and disambiguation pages are in place (and in the main they are), for a reader the actual title and therefore URL of an article are barely relevant.

This fetishisation of the precise title of an article serves no real purpose and diverts attention and editing effort from the primary goal of content creation.

Now in raising this here, I expect plenty of objections. What prompted the observation was that at least one dispute over an article title (Perth) has ended up in arbitration. That's crazy. And as I am sure we all know there are plenty of examples of similar disputes.

But if I come to Wikipedia for the first time looking for (as an example) Perth, whether I am a Scot or an Aussie (or somewhere in between) it's not really a big deal if I get the article on Scottish Perth with a hatnote, or Australian Perth with with a hatnote, or a dab page. I can get what I want with a click. Similarly, to use an example from the policy, if I search for Bill Clinton and via a redirect end up on a page that happens to have the title William Jefferson Clinton, that makes absolutely no difference to me and the chances are I would not even notice.

So why do we make such a big deal of, and expend so much energy debating, article titles? Maybe I am missing something, but I would like the article naming policy to say something to the effect that as long as any common use of a search term can reach the desired article in no more than one click, the title doesn't matter. After all that is the de facto position already for many search terms, hence the need for hatnotes. Mcewan (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As for "consider the reader", I agree. As for the rest, yes, it is perfectly routine that in any discussion that people care about, someone who doesn't care will show up and expend a few paragraphs to say so.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't understand the second part. Do you mean to imply that I don't care? Because I assure you I do. Mcewan (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the communications problem is that Mcewan cares about Wikipedia, but in his own words, "the title doesn't matter". Happy again? Art LaPella (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The real problem is not just the title, or just the lack of a hatnote, it's the user experience for a first-time user. If you are a registered user, and are logged in, a search will display a page of results — so that you can choose from them.  But if you are not logged in, and there is an article that matches what you typed into the search box, you are not given a choice — you are rudely bumped directly to that article without being shown any related results. In many cases the articles that match popular search keywords are of poor, or very poor, quality. (One example: "web design"). Many new users won't stick around to try to find out how to search for related articles. The search box for users who are not logged in should work the same way, and ideally be in the same place, as the search box that logged-in users get. LittleBen (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I clicked "Log out" I couldn't tell the difference, despite several experiments with what you might mean. My best guess is: Type something like "web design" in the search box. Instead of hitting Enter, click the magnifying glass. Since the page exists, it doesn't give me options, it goes to the web design article. But trying the same thing logged out gives the same result. Or maybe it depends on Preferences. Or maybe everybody else knows what you mean. Art LaPella (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The search box appears at top right when you are logged out. If you enter "web design" and hit return (rather than figuring out that you are supposed to click on the magnifying glass icon) you will get dumped straight at the web design article. The search box appears at middle left when you are logged in. If you enter "web design" and click on "Search" then you are shown snippets of a choice of articles to go to, just like on Google — but "Go" is the default, if you hit return rather than clicking "Search". Note that "Go" is not the default in Google. Google gives you a choice. And the design and position of the search box is different in Wikipedia depending on whether you are logged in or not. LittleBen (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When you're logged in, your personal preferences control the look. I use the old monobook layout, as you probably do, too.  When you're not logged in, you get the new default.  But the search box works the same in both, as far as I can tell.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, with my default Vector skin, being logged in or out results in a search box in the upper right. If you enter "web design" the word "Search" disappears so I couldn't possibly click it. Art LaPella (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it might be better to go to a list of results, rather than the article. But that is a separate issue from that of the article title. I still don't know why we treat it as so important. Imagine running a script that moves all 3.9M articles to an arbitrary name (a number, or a guid or something) and leaves behind a redirect to the new page. Would we we be worse off? If so, that's the reason we care about titles, if not, let's relax a bit about them. Mcewan (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't know why, remember there is a built-in problem with a volunteer project: things that make individual people look important are much more likely to get done. Actually, there is an oft-exaggerated problem with a clearly wrong title (it would be confusing to have the word "Germany" at the top of the France article, whether or not it interfered with navigating to it). Art LaPella (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the vast majority of cases the effect on the reader between the two titles in consideration is negligible. In the very rare cases where it does matter that of course should  be the issue.  But if you look at say the current crop of move nominations at WP:RM, I bet you might not find a single example where the effect of either title matters much to the reader. That said, if you consider readers not familiar with each topic in question, you could probably "improve" the vast majority of our titles to make them more likely to be recognized from the title alone by any such reader.  That's why we have the  to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic limitation incorporated in the recognizability criterion. Accordingly, the "only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously" aspect of precision is not to help the reader, but to make our titles more consistent, more predictable, less contentious and more stable.  The greater the size of the pool of acceptable potential titles from which we can all choose our favorite, the more likely we will be arguing about titles indefinitely, and there will be no way to choose a stable version.  Precision is an easy, obvious, natural and harmless way to whittle the size of that pool down. Title stability is an important consideration, especially when the effect on the reader is negligible, and that's mostly what the precision criterion addresses.  Anyone who doesn't understand and appreciate this, is likely to be frustrated with many if not most of our titles.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's interesting how you describe why you insist on having to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic limitation incorporated in the recognizability criterion -- to avoid improving titles for readers not familiar with the topic. Is that how we should be keeping the reader in mind?  As for title stability, I haven't heard anyone mention that as a problem (besides you).  And achieving it by reducing precision to where the titles barely avoid collision is again not a reader-oriented approach.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There are some wikiprojects who ignore the minimalist, and go for titles that are more recognizable and precise. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation, where these titles are contrasted: Marble Hill – 225th Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) versus Marble Hill – 225th Street.  I'm not saying these are ideal titles (and they don't yet conform to the most recent MOS:DASH), but they are examples of where instability is being caused by people trying to implement your minimalism, at the expense of recognizability and precision.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I regarding restoring stable version of precision wording
I've requested the assistance of an uninvolved administrator to restore the stable wording of the precision criterion. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

unclear wording
The following (especially as determined in) is unclear and seems to contradict itself:

Ambiguous[3] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

--Espoo (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We thought we had that fixed, but this diff by PBS put it back; so ask him. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 37 -- PBS (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't follow that convoluted old stuff. Maybe Blueboar can say why he thought we had a consensus for his fix.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ivory Coast vs. Cote d'Ivoire
There is a move review on this request closure. Are there any flaws in this policy and title-related guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Considering title changes"
I'd like to make this section more concise, as follows: I hope this makes it clearer to users and reduces the possibility of deliberately playing on parts of it. Thoughts? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you please highlight the changes you are proposing, and the reasons for the proposed changes? -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Below this comment, I have explained the main changes as I understand them. Feel free to correct. --Boson (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is 'right' in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason, such as anachronism, for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both Volgograd and the Battle of Stalingrad."
 * The first part has been moved further down and changed from
 * to "Do remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is 'right' in a moral or political sense and that there may be valid reasons for inconsistencies in common usage – Wikipedia has an article on Volgograd (the city) but the Battle of Stalingrad."

"While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."
 * The part
 * has been changed to "Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view – Wikipedia describes current usage and cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."


 * The condition"If an article title has been stable for a long time," seems to have been removed.

The word "editing" [the title] remains. I would prefer "moving" [the article ], which I presume is what is meant.--Boson (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that the first paragraph, which is about two very specific cases (political-ethical considerations and consistency), should be moved after the second and third ones, which are more general (they both apply to article titles that are controversial for any possible reason, not only for political-ethical considerations or consistency). It should not be moved between the second and third sentences, that are about the same topic (controversial titles). Paolo.dL (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I did it. If this change is not reverted, could you please adjust your proposal? If you keep the current order of paragraphs, it will be much easier to discuss the changes you propose. By the way, I think you oversimplified the example about consistency. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice you made a couple of changes, which I don't disagree about. Is it OK as it is now, in your opinion? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem not to have read what I wrote above. Would you mind to adjust your proposal (both "old" and "proposed") according to the new order of paragraphs? ... Paolo.dL (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies regarding diacritics, alternate names, and WP:AT
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies. j⚛e deckertalk 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Change policy -- Official Country Names
I believe that we ought to change the article title for sovereign states to reflect the proper, official name; common names should be redirects, not the article title.

Wikipedia desires to attain levels of professionalism equivalent to encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica; why, then, is this policy not already followed. Perhaps the most egregious example is the article titled United States rather than United States of America. Equally as bad is China (which should refer to NEITHER country in my opinion, but be a separate article entirely.) instead of People's Republic of China. The current standard is both unprofessional and in some cases can be misleading, and as such I believe a change is in order.

I am considering creating a request for discussion. If I do so before someone else does, I'll link to it here. Zaldax (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC) EDIT: THE DISCUSSION IS HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaldax (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:naming conventions (characters)
This is now an essay, not a guideline. I'm planning to call it a supplement to one guideline or policy or more, like this policy, but I don't know. Shall it be a guidance essay or information page? --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION does not respect naming criteria. WP:NCDAB does.
When we speak about disambiguating titles, obviously we must do it in two equally important pages:
 * 1) WP:Disambiguation (section WP:NCDAB)
 * 2) WP:Article titles (section WP:PRECISION)

WP:PRECISION states that Natural disambiguation should be preferred to Parenthetical disambiguation. On the contrary:


 * 1) WP:NCDAB states that there's no hard rule for that choice.
 * 2) There are several sentences in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA which in some cases would suggest to choose Parenthetical disambiguation rather than Natural disambiguation, even when natural disambiguation exists.

For instance, we recently renamed Musical mode to Mode (music), according to a general naming criterion: consistency (see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA). Indeed, Mode (music) is consistent with other articles in the same disambiguation page:
 * Mode
 * Mode (music)
 * Mode (statistics)
 * Mode (literature)
 * Mode (computer interface)

Similarly,
 * Scale
 * Scale (music) (<-- new title requested for Musical scale)
 * Scale (string instruments)
 * Scale (album)
 * Scale (descriptive set theory)
 * Scale (ratio)
 * Scale (map)
 * Scale (social sciences)
 * Scale (physics)

Also, we should allow for the possibility that, in some cases, editors may reach consensus about the fact that "Parenthetical disambiguation" is more "natural" than "Natural disambiguation" (forgive me for the apparent paradox). Indeed, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says: "Naturalness. Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with", and readers are in some cases used to and hence "likely to" look for parenthetical disambiguation.

For instance, Mode (music) is in my opinion more "natural" than Musical mode. In most encyclopedias and dictionaries, people are used to look for "Mode", not for "Musical mode", when they want to know the meaning of the word "mode" in music. For instance, see:
 * Mode in Encyclopedia Britannica (first item is Mode (music))
 * Mode (point 5) in Webster's online dictionary.
 * (Scale (point 6) would be an even more relevant example)

I conclude that WP:NCDAB is consistent with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, while WP:PRECISION is not. Therefore, I strongly suggest to fix WP:PRECISION. This includes copying the following sentence from WP:NCDAB to WP:PRECISION:


 * "If there is a choice between using natural and parenthetical disambiguation, such as Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics), there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other. The choice between them is made by consensus, taking into account general naming criteria (e.g., consistency with the pattern used for similar articles)."

In short, I suggest to make a specific criterion (WP:PRECISION) consistent with the relevant general criteria (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA), and to make two sections about the same policy (WP:NCDAB and WP:PRECISION) consistent with each other.

Paolo.dL (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I view WP:NCDAB a reflection of this guideline, while I agree they should not contradict each other. From a disambiguation perspective, it does not matter how any non-primary topic article is disambiguated from the base name, as long as it is disambiguated somehow; indeed, from a purely disambiguation-project point of view, I'd expect that parenthetical disambiguation would be preferred to natural disambiguation: you've identified the best possible title for a topic article, but you can't use that title because the topic isn't primary, so you simply pop on the appropriate parenthetical. It's the topic-specific lens that lends preference for natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation. The choice of qualified titles (natural or parenthetical) is then up to the WP:Article titles and the extensive hierarchy of genre-specific naming conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At the same time, people more interested in disambiguation are likely to view WP:PRECISION as a reflection of WP:NCDAB. Indeed, WP:NCDAB was more complete than WP:PRECISION: the comma-separated method was not even listed in WP:PRECISION before I copied it from WP:NCDAB. The same topic (title disambiguation) is seen from two different and equally important points of view:
 * disambiguation criteria, and
 * naming criteria.
 * Paolo.dL (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * More interested in disambiguation than I? I suppose it's possible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * :-). If the disambiguation standpoint tends to favour parenthetic (as you say), while WP:Article titles favours natural, isn't it wise for a fair policy to allow both with equal freedom, only limited by general criteria such as WP:Consensus andWP:NAMINGCRITERIA? Let's be equidistant from the two opposite points of view. Paolo.dL (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, that's not what I meant. I meant that if it were just a dab question, why not go with the parenthetical all the time? Solves ambiguity, and we're off to other tasks. But it's not a dab question; the only reason dab exists is because WP technically cannot have two articles at the same title. Dab says, let them be dabbed. Article titles (and the hierarchy of naming conventions) say, we'll do so thusly. And it's done. Dab project should be agnostic as to how the articles are titled (or formatted, or kept, or deleted) and instead concern itself with how disambiguation pages are titled (or formatted, or kept, or deleted). The main overlap IMO between the two is when article titling specifies title X, and there's ambiguity, but there's a question of whether the topic at hand is the primary topic for X. If the topic is primary for X (by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), then we're set, if not, it's back to the titling conventions to figure out what to title it instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation is what people expects in some cases (see my examples). So, it is wiser for us to be neutral in WP:PRECISION. Parenthetical and comma-separated disambiguation can be both natural! Your recent edit summary in WP:DAB ("comma-separated dabbing seems to be a type of natural dabbing") brings you close to this conclusion. Paolo.dL (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * About consistency (see definition in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA). below, JHunterJ called "foolish consistency" a controversial application of the consistency criterion. In that case, I agree. However, here I showed that it is not foolish to consistently use a given disambiguation method (either natural, parenthetical or comma-separated), whithin the list of articles appearing in a given disambiguation list, such as Mode, Scale, Transposition, Interval.


 * About naturalness (see definition in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA). "Natural" and "non-natural" disambiguation is a controversial distinction. Parenthetical disambiguation is in some cases "natural" for most encyclopedias and dyctionaries (e.g. see Mode in Encyclopedia Britannica), and hence expected by readers.
 * Example. In a recent discussion in Talk:Musical scale most editors agreed that the article title should be Scale (music) because parenthetical disambiguation is both natural (people are "likely to search" for articles disambiguated with parentheses) and consistent with other titles listed in Scale.
 * Paolo.dL (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia-construct of a parenthetical (music) might be expected by someone familiar with Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it "natural". If independent reliable sources might use the term "Scale (music)" in running prose, then it would be "natural". -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See definition of "naturalness" given in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. It is controversial that a (disambiguated or not) title is "natural" only when used "in running prose", unless you use WP:PRECISION as a dogma. When used "in running prose", a natural title (a title that people are "likely to search" is both natural and prosaic. So we can have:
 * (Natural and) Prosaic (non-separated disambiguation)
 * (Natural and) Parenthetic (separated disambiguation)
 * (Natural and) comma-separated (separated disambiguation, of course)
 * Of course, non-natural titles should not be used, even if they are prosaic. This simple adjustment makes WP:PRECISION consistent with both WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:NCDAB. Paolo.dL (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Paolo, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. "Scale" is a natural title. However, it requires disambiguation. "Scale (music)" is not a natural title -- no one would deliberately use that form unless required to for purposes of disambiguating from other senses of the term. older ≠ wiser 00:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think his point is that musical scale is also something about which "no one would deliberately use that form unless required to for purposes of disambiguating from other senses of that term". That is, even though it doesn't have parentheses, it's no more "natural".  The general point is that "natural" and "no parentheses" is not a simple equivalence, and non-parentheses forms should not necessarily be preferred over parenthetic forms.   Now, how to explain this clearly in the policy?  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? "Musical scale" is a natural language contruct and is commonly used in a variety of contexts as a simple google search shows. "Scale (music)" is an artificial construct that no one would use apart from exceptional situations. older ≠ wiser 02:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I don't know which is a better title for the article (and as noted below, no one asserts that one type of disambiguation always is preferred), but to my knowledge, the distinction between 'natural disambiguation' and 'parenthetical disambiguation' has never been "controversial".  —David Levy 02:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, we do prefer natural disambiguation (e.g. Electric light over Light (electric), Cheque over Check (finance), Apartment over Flat (domicile), Portland, Maine over Portland (Maine) or Portland (Maine city)).
 * Of course, this isn't indiscriminate. If a particular instance of natural disambiguation is relatively uncommon or unusual, it shouldn't be used purely to avoid parenthetical disambiguation.  Perhaps that's what we need to mention.  —David Levy 02:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Paolo: You're relying on an inapplicable connotation of 'natural'. You claim that the distinction is "controversial", and this would be true if your interpretation of the terminology were the one intended. But I've never encountered it before. When we refer to 'natural disambiguation', we don't mean 'the most logical choice'. We mean 'a type arising outside Wikipedia's page titling scheme and similar'. I strongly object to your replacement of 'natural disambiguation' with 'running-prose disambiguation', which makes the explanation much less clear for the sake of eliminating wording that doesn't appear to be causing widespread misunderstanding. If anything, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA should be modified to use a term other than 'naturalness' (perhaps 'commonness', 'prevalence' or 'predominance'). But given the absence of confusion, I'm not sure that even this is necessary. —David Levy 02:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a terminological problem, in my opinion. But most importantly, let's not forget that there is a contradiction between WP:PRECISION and WP:NCDAB. There's a lot of people who thinks that WP:PRECISION should not express a preference for "natural" over parenthetical disambiguation, and that this preference sometimes conflicts with the consistency criterion as in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. I am not the only one! I am here to represent those who wrote (without my help) WP:NCDAB, and a large number of editors who in several articles preferred parenthetical to "natural" disambiguation, contrary to what WP:PRECISION suggests (e.g. Interval (music), Scale (music), Mode (music) instead of Musical interval, Musical scale, Musical mode). People often does not care about fixing policies. But they will appreciate if we fix them. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Who, other than you, has the terminology confused?
 * For the most part, they simply focus on different aspects. We do generally prefer natural disambiguation, but this isn't a hard rule, so both pages are essentially correct.  We probably could improve them by harmonizing some of the wording, thereby conveying more details in each location.
 * Who are these people? You've cited instances in which parenthetical disambiguation was deemed preferable, but these aren't indicative of opposition to the policy (which doesn't require that natural disambiguation always be favored).
 * When dealing with millions of articles, such conflicts are inevitable and don't necessarily indicate that one of the rules is wrong and must be changed. As Jenks24 explained to you on his talk page, it's normal to discuss a particular application and determine which course of action makes the most sense (as was done in this instance).
 * Our rules are intended to cover most cases. They aren't set in stone; there always will be exceptions, which is fine.  You're attempting to solve a nonexistent problem.  —David Levy 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Who are these people? You've cited instances in which parenthetical disambiguation was deemed preferable, but these aren't indicative of opposition to the policy (which doesn't require that natural disambiguation always be favored).
 * When dealing with millions of articles, such conflicts are inevitable and don't necessarily indicate that one of the rules is wrong and must be changed. As Jenks24 explained to you on his talk page, it's normal to discuss a particular application and determine which course of action makes the most sense (as was done in this instance).
 * Our rules are intended to cover most cases. They aren't set in stone; there always will be exceptions, which is fine.  You're attempting to solve a nonexistent problem.  —David Levy 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Our rules are intended to cover most cases. They aren't set in stone; there always will be exceptions, which is fine.  You're attempting to solve a nonexistent problem.  —David Levy 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Denying the problem makes no sense. Before joining this discussion, JHunterJ started a parallel discussion on what you call a "nonexistent problem": WT:DA. In Talk:Scale (music), editors discussed about the above mentioned contradictions. WP:PRECISION says:
 * Parenthetical disambiguation: If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses.
 * Discussing about the existence of the problem is a waste of time. Paolo.dL (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood. I noted above that it would be advisable to harmonize the wording of WP:PRECISION and WP:NCDAB for greater clarity.  I don't think that anyone disputes that.
 * By "a nonexistent problem", I was referring to instances in which our general preference for natural disambiguation clashes with our general goal of achieving consistency. You seem to believe that this is indicative of a problem with the policy, and I'm explaining that such conflicts are normal, unavoidable, and routinely resolved via discussion/consensus.  The examples that you cited serve as evidence of that.  —David Levy 11:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "natural" as opposed to "parenthetical"
We should at least agree that the word "natural" is used in WP:PRECISION to mean: commonly used in running (English) text. Of course, not as commonly as the ambiguous name, which is defined as the "most commonly used name". Notice that, as stated above by others, we mean "commonly used in running text" (or "running prose"), and not "commonly used as a title in textbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias". Otherwise, Scale (music) would be natural, as I proved above, and as stated by a large majority of editors in Talk:Scale (music). Sometimes, a "naturally" disambiguated title consists of an alternative name which does not require disambiguation (e.g., Apartment instead of Flat (domicile)), and sometimes it contains an additional term (e.g., English language instead of English). The additional term may be: JHunterJ, Born2cycle, older≠wiser, David Levy, can we at least agree about this? Paolo.dL (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * An adjective placed before the ambiguous name (e.g. "Electric", in Electric light)
 * The name of a cathegory or class, placed after the ambiguous name (e.g. "people" in English people)


 * We use the term "natural disambiguation" in reference to terminology arising naturally during the course of ordinary English communication. This can include speech; it isn't limited to running text or writing in general.  —David Levy 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Paolo.dL, the question of whether parenthetical disambiguation is preferable to an alternative "natural language" title is something to be determined on a case by case basis. But in general, I think there is a preference for natural disambiguation in article titles. I do not think you proved that "scale (music)" is a natural language title -- you may have convinced editors that it is a better title, but it is in no way a natural language title. older ≠ wiser 16:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Since we do not easily understand each other, I would appreciate if we could start by reaching consensus about a non-ambiguous definition for the term "natural" as used in WP:PRECISION. Can we say "commonly used in running English?" (running text or running speach), as opposed to "commonly used in titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks, or textbook chapters"? As I wrote above, "commonly used in English" is ambiguous and may lead to the conclusion that parenthetical is natural in this context (English used for encyclopedia titles), or at least that titles such as "Musical scale" or "Musical mode" are not natural in this context (as they are rarely used as titles). Bkonrad, you may have missed the word "Otherwise" in my comment above (14:49, 29 June 2012). Paolo.dL (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there evidence that the terminology has caused widespread confusion? You keep trying to clarify it via the use of descriptions that apparently make sense to you but aren't helpful to the rest of us.  (For example, "running English" is unfamiliar in the above context; it appears to be a billiards term.)  —David Levy 18:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what either "natural" or "running" English might be. Something to do with "reliable sources"? To call something "natural" isn't exactly NPOV, since it assumes by default that everything else is "unnatural".  Wouldn't want anything unnatural, now, nosiree. Unnatural acts might even be illegal, who knows?  I don't think "running English" is a pool term though: the linked article refers to "putting English on the ball", referring to the practice of getting the cue ball to hit off center to produce a spin, and therefore a curved trajectory. Very hard to do with American pool balls; they're heavier than the British ones.  Maybe "natural" is meant to refer to conversational English. You don't usually pronounce punctuation, but I wouldn't go so far as to call parentheses unnatural. After all, And Yet It Moves was differentiated from And yet it moves solely with capital letters, and you certainly don't pronounce those. Neotarf (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of the above appears to have been written in jest, but as previously noted, we're referring to neither written nor spoken English exclusively.
 * "Portland, Maine" constitutes natural disambiguation because that formatting is commonly used in ordinary writing. Conversely, "Portland (Maine)" and "Portland (Maine city)" are not.  —David Levy 19:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * David, since you can't seem to marshal any actual, you know, reasons against what I just wrote, and since you can't seem to pinpoint what a "natural" title is supposed to be, I take it that you agree with me and that your above comment is written in jest. Neotarf (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd already explained what "natural disambiguation" means (and provided several examples), and I addressed the on-topic portion of your message. Are you waiting for me to discuss unnatural acts and the differences between American and British cue sports?  —David Levy 04:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Neotarf, I have created much of the substantive pool and billiards content on Wikipedia and I am an expert in real life. Running english (not normally capitalized in this context) is an incredibly common term. It is the counterpart to reverse english and refers to sidespin that widens a ball angle when it hits a rail. Sorry, but what you've described about American pool balls is utterly wrong. In fact the larger and much heavier billiards balls used in carom are much easier to impart english to and with accuracy than smaller and lighter balls.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you say "running english" is a pool term, I'm willing to take your word for it, but it doesn't appear in the linked article. And billiards is pretty specialized, not the sort of thing you find in the local neighborhood bar, at least not in my neck of the woods. At any rate, it doesn't seem like a very useful term for disambiguation. Neotarf (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "natural" as opposed to "parenthetical", continued (arbitrary break)
David, indulge me, please. Neotarf's contribution shows that I am not the only editor who thinks that the use of the term "natural" in WP:PRECISION is somewhat questionable. However, my main point is not about terminology (see my comment above posted at 20:34, 29 June).

This subsection is meant to be just a small tile of a large mosaic. In order to continue the discussion without being hindered by repeated terminological misunderstandings on both sides, I would appreciate if we could first agree about this:

Paolo.dL (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Natural" disambiguation, as currently defined in WP:PRECISION, means "commonly used in ordinary written or spoken English", as opposed to "commonly used in titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks, or textbook chapters".


 * As noted above, Neotarf's message appears to be primarily jocular.
 * See my reply, posted at 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC).
 * I've seen no evidence of terminological misunderstanding by anyone other than you (no offense intended).
 * That seems accurate (though titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks or textbook chapters might also contain the same names/formatting). —David Levy 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen no evidence of terminological misunderstanding by anyone other than you (no offense intended).
 * That seems accurate (though titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks or textbook chapters might also contain the same names/formatting). —David Levy 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems accurate (though titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks or textbook chapters might also contain the same names/formatting). —David Levy 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems accurate (though titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks or textbook chapters might also contain the same names/formatting). —David Levy 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would not necessarily exclude "commonly used in titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks, or textbook chapters". It may be necessary to consider whether such works use some specialized conventions, but that would be true of most other specialized usages as distinguished from common, generalized usage. older ≠ wiser 22:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * David may be trying to laugh off my comments, but "natural" is in fact a loaded term, similar to the loaded terms of the recent wikipedia-wide Abortion debate debate. As far as I can tell, "natural" means "a title I like", the insinuation being that other titles are "unnatural", which I have already pointed out has resonances with practices that have been considered unsavory or even illegal in some places. The biggest problem with the anti-parenthesis comments is that there don't seem to be any actual reasons for not using parentheses: the comments rely on rhetorical tricks like treating other viewpoints as a joke or giving another viewpoint a loaded name.  Don't get me wrong, I have my own idea of what I like, and I'm not all that fond of parenthetical titles, but the conversation needs to get back to the level of WP:AGF, even if it means that some editors, including me, may end up changing our minds about what we like.  There seems to be a huge battleground mentality surrounding WP:TITLE these days, where editors line up to defend big bluelinked slogans, while the title policy remains bloated with verbiage and practically unusable.  The first step to moving forward is to unpack the labels. Neotarf (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't "trying to laugh off [your] comments". From my perspective, they seemed so outlandish and irrelevant that it didn't even occur to me that you might be making serious points.  My remark that you appeared to be joking reflected an assumption of good faith (i.e. that you weren't trolling).
 * Please don't interpret these statements as insults or attempts to belittle your views. But honestly, I barely know how to begin addressing your criticisms, which stem from perceptions that I have difficulty understanding.
 * That isn't close to its meaning, which has been explained above. I don't know what else to add.
 * Again, I don't even know how to respond to that. It's simply bizarre and has no basis in reality.  I just spent several minutes trying (and failing) to come up with a gentler way to phrase that.  I'm at a loss.  I honestly don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but in more than seven years at Wikipedia, I've never encountered such a claim.
 * The rationale has been explained. In general, we prefer names/formatting familiar to readers through their use in the course of ordinary English communication (i.e. outside contexts in which disambiguation is being appended to resolve naming conflicts and the like).
 * I honestly don't know what other explanations you seek. I apologize if I've misunderstood something that you wrote or offended you in any way.  —David Levy 06:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Better amused than angry, say I. Certainly no offense taken. But your response illustrates the basic problem with the argument against parenthetical disambiguation. The strongest arguments are "it's simply bizarre", "I don't know how to respond", and "I've never heard of it before", variations on "personal point of view" arguments like WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I didn't participate in the "Big vs. Big(movie)" discussion because the only arguments I could think of were "because I say so" and "that's just WRONG". Opposing arguments have to do with how easy it is for someone searching for a particular topic to find it, or to recognize what the topic is about. If you say something is "natural" that is, coming from nature, it is only a point of view, it is only natural to you, and not verifiable for someone else.  Neotarf (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're applying a definition of "natural" other than that which is intended in this context.
 * The comments that you quoted/paraphrased refer to your conclusions, not to parenthetical disambiguation itself (which I don't dislike or regard as bizarre). —David Levy 14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, my apologies, I misunderstood; what you must find hard to understand is the assertion that referring to non-parenthetical disambiguation as "natural" English is not NPOV. Maybe more a recent example would be better.  Take "natural cereal".  If you Google it, and look at the images, it is very quickly evident that everyone wants to tack the word "natural" onto the front of their packaging.  But what does "natural" mean?  Nothing.  When you buy a "natural" cereal, you might be getting conventional (not organic) ingredients, as well as pesticides, genetically modified ingredients, or industrial waste. It's nothing more than a fancy label. But who would want to buy a non-"natural" cereal?  I'm not saying that all the recent acrimony over titling is due to some Sapir-Whorfian reaction to the word, but it is certainly a coup for the anti-parentheses crowd to have the "natural" label tacked to their product. I think if you examined it more closely, "natural" English would have just about as much meaning as "natural" cereal. Neotarf (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're applying a definition of "natural" other than that which is intended in this context.
 * The comments that you quoted/paraphrased refer to your conclusions, not to parenthetical disambiguation itself (which I don't dislike or regard as bizarre). —David Levy 14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, my apologies, I misunderstood; what you must find hard to understand is the assertion that referring to non-parenthetical disambiguation as "natural" English is not NPOV. Maybe more a recent example would be better.  Take "natural cereal".  If you Google it, and look at the images, it is very quickly evident that everyone wants to tack the word "natural" onto the front of their packaging.  But what does "natural" mean?  Nothing.  When you buy a "natural" cereal, you might be getting conventional (not organic) ingredients, as well as pesticides, genetically modified ingredients, or industrial waste. It's nothing more than a fancy label. But who would want to buy a non-"natural" cereal?  I'm not saying that all the recent acrimony over titling is due to some Sapir-Whorfian reaction to the word, but it is certainly a coup for the anti-parentheses crowd to have the "natural" label tacked to their product. I think if you examined it more closely, "natural" English would have just about as much meaning as "natural" cereal. Neotarf (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Bkonrad, your contribution makes sense. It is definitely a topic which needs to be discussed. Can we first find an agreement about the following analysis? "Natural" disambiguation (as defined above) may be obtained as follows:
 * 1) Substitution. An alternative name is used, which does not require disambiguation (e.g., Apartment instead of Flat (domicile))
 * 2) Further specification. A disambiguating term or expression is added (also known as disambituating tag). For instance,
 * An adjective is added before the ambiguous name (e.g. "Electric", in Electric light)
 * The name of a cathegory or class is added after the ambiguous name (e.g. "people" in English people)
 * Comma-separated disambiguation. For geographical names, the disambiguating tag is typically the name of a higher-level administrative division, added after the ambiguous name and separated from it by a comma (e.g. "Berkshire" in Windsor, Berkshire)

Listing comma-separated disambiguation as an example of "natural" disambiguation was suggested by JHunterJ, and already accepted in WP:NCDAB. Is this correct in your opinion? Does it need adjustments? Paolo.dL (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Parentheses do not come from nature, but neither do adjectives or commas. Neotarf (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not bad. Some qualification on "geographical names" -- the practice of comma disambiguation for place names varies somewhat based on regional practices. And the term "geographical names" may be to broad -- there is a distinction between how settlements and administrative divisions are disambiguated (often, but not exclusively with the comma convention) versus how natural features such as rivers, islands, lakes etc. are disambiguated (usually with parentheses -- and sometimes by administrative division and sometimes by other means such as by the river into which a tributary flows or the body of water in which an island is located). I'm not sure how best to capture that distinction, but it is slightly misleading to imply that comma disambiguation with administrative division is used for all geographical names. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Thank you. What if we say:
 * Comma-separated disambiguation. For some ambiguous place names (mainly names of human settlements or administrative divisions), the name of a higher-level administrative division is often added after the ambiguous name and separated from it by a comma (e.g. "Berkshire" in Windsor, Berkshire). For further details, see WP:PLACE.
 * Paolo.dL (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Natural in the context of WP:AT comes from the word ordering usually used in English. When this encyclopaedia was first created, article titles could have been structured as: "Blair, Anthony Charles Lynton", "Waterloo, battle of", "United Kingdom, London, Waterloo, train station" format loved by bureaucrats the world over and frequently used in Encyclopaedias, databases. The choice was made to go with natural ordering as would be found in English texts. Some of the naming conventions encourage this type of natural ordering for dab pages for example the Naming conventions (ships) encourages the use of prescript eg RMS Titanic rather than Titanic (ship) and "RMS Titanic" is more natural than "Titanic (ship)" although of course "Titanic (ship)" is more convent for the pipe trick. Personally I have never had a problem understanding what natural means, and I think that terms like "commonly used in running English" do not help (It makes me think of the old Chinese Communist term Running dog and to me seems about as foreign). Why use five words when one will do and it has a perfectly sound OED definition "Natural language 2.a" A language that has evolved naturally, as distinguished from an artificial language devised for international communications or for formal logical or mathematical purposes. -- PBS (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting contribution. Thank you. Unfortunately naturalness is defined differently, and in my opinion more completely and less questionably, in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. In my opinion parenthetical disambiguation is quite naturally used in encyclopedia titles and dictionary entries. Nobody forced encyclopedia and dictionary editors to use parenthetical disambiguation. That method evolved naturally, spontaneously. Since we are dealing with titles, I find it quite biased an approach which calls "natural" only the disambiguation methods (or alternative terms) commonly used in ordinary English over disambiguation methods commonly used in titles. For instance, "Ordinary disambiguation" would be better, in my opinion. However, it is difficult to find consensus about terminology, and terminology is not my main point.
 * On the contrary, it is easier to find consensus about facts, and this is what I am trying to do (see my analysis above). For instance, what you wrote about formats previously used in Wikipedia is quite interesting. I agree that these formats look awful. I think it would be useful to insert a sentence such as this:
 * "Except for the above mentioned place names, comma-separated disambiguation should be avoided. For instance, Tony Blair and Battle of Waterloo are preferred over "Blair, Anthony Charles Lynton" and "Waterloo, battle of".
 * This is true, independently of the fact that we call "Waterloo, battle of" innatural, non-ordinary, or whatever.
 * Paolo.dL (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that WP:NAMINGCRITERIA differs from that OED definition, because it seems to me to be the same thing only expressed in different words.


 * The structure in article titles in many encyclopaedias are not in natural language they fall under the "as distinguished from an artificial language" in the OED definition because the rules of the language used to define the index of such structures is precise and limited (easy to describe in Yacc or Bison). Indeed in that respect it is a great pity that we can not use a full blown relational database to model our article titles.


 * You wrote "For instance, what you wrote about formats previously used in Wikipedia is quite interesting". I think you have misunderstood my point. Wikipedia could have gone that way (as it has for Categories), but editors at the start of the project rejected the idea and went for natural language article titles.


 * Russian names are naturally disambiguated by the middle name (son of). Some others can be naturally disambiguated by using a middle name or initial, or cognomen -- it depends on what the reliable sources use (We could if needed have "Bomber" Harris). There are other cases where a comma is useful for example we use them in WP:NCROY (see the dab page David Boyle). We also use "the elder" and "the younger" as a cognomen. So it is quite possible to use Fred Smith, the elder and Fred Smith, the younger (as is done in the ODNB and other references, because that is how they were referred to in their lifetimes and it has continued in reference works about them down to the ODNB), placing a comma after the name and before the cognomen allows the pipe trick to be used. Earlier this year I worked on a Scottish family who for several generations were members of the Scottish judiciary who are known by these types of differences (as they tended to be very unimaginative their use of Christian names and were frequently MPs and judges: See Robert Dundas of Arniston, the younger. As another example I chose to place "alias Cromwell" in brackets Richard Williams (alias Cromwell), because usually I would write it that way (because although well known for Oliver Cromwell's family), it is unusual and it needs a footnote  to explain it,  but I could have used  Richard Williams, alias Cromwell as it is often written that way in reliable sources. These are examples I can find easily because I have worked on them, but there are bound to be lots of other examples where disambiguation is done through commas. -- PBS (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I explained in my first comment the reason why I believe that "WP:NAMINGCRITERIA differs from that OED definition". Please read that comment before continuing the discussion. Basically, there's a difference between "commonly used in encyclopedia titles" (and hence expected by readers), and "commonly used in ordinary English" (running text or speech).
 * You may be or may be not right about the fact that parenthetical disambiguation is not natural language, as defined in OED. Let's assume that you are right. I see that you care much about this, but I don't. I do care much more about the fact that parenthetical disambiguation is commonly used in encyclopedias. And there are a lot of good reasons to follow suit.
 * Example. For instance, the ambiguous term "scale" is used to mean "(musical) scale" much more often than the non-ambiguous expression "musical scale". In most cases, we speak about (musical) scales in contexts where the word "musical" can be easily deduced and hence is omitted (e.g., we rarely say or write "C-major musical scale"). In other words, contexts in which the expression "musical scale" appears somewhat innatural. That's a good reason not to use "musical scale" as an article title. Either "(Musical) scale" or "Scale (music)" are more appropriate titles than "musical scale", and that's one of the reasons why "Scale (music)" is commonly used in encyclopedias.
 * This is consistent with what we do in the first sentence of the introduction: "In music, a scale is ...". By the way, we don't even care to add: "(sometimes also called musical scale)".
 * However, we had to fight a time-consuming battle on Talk:Scale (music) against editors who correctly maintained that, according to WP:PRECISION,
 * Musical scale was "natural" (← I don't really care about terminology), and
 * it should have been preferred over Scale (music) (← this is what I am really concerned about)
 * I conclude that WP:PRECISION, in other similar cases, may either prevent editors from taking the right decision, or make their job more difficult and time consuming. And that's why I started this discussion.
 * Paolo.dL (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This text, which JHunterJ and I recently edited in the article (here is the difference between revisions), is a more accurate description of comma-separated disambiguation:

Paolo.dL (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, as in Windsor, Berkshire (see WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)). Comma-separated disambiguation is sometimes also used in other contexts (e.g., Diana, Princess of Wales; see WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)). However, titles such as Tony Blair and Battle of Waterloo are preferred over alternatives such as "Blair, Anthony Charles Lynton" and "Waterloo, Battle of", in which a comma is used to change the natural ordering of the words.

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics
RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See also the related discussion at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is already a Category for MoS (regional) but no Vietnamese page there yet. Although a link to this MoS (regional) category has been added to MoS, it's very difficult to find. There is also a link from Use_English. There isn't a link from WP:Article titles to the MoS (regional) category because somebody who thinks he OWNS WP:Article titles repeatedly reverts any attempt to add such a link for no real reason. LittleBen (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The MOS pages are not guidance for the Article titles policy, the guidelines for AT are naming conventions (the MOS pages cover usage within an article).-- PBS (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That distinction should really be made much more clear, because it is not only beginning editors that continue to make that mistake. Our policies and guidelines for article titles are different and separate from the p&g for the body of article(which is covered by MOS). Also for the body of articles we make a distinction between the lede and the rest of the article. Our p&g for the lede differs from the rest of the article. This confuses people unnecessarily. We could make it more clear by using a hatnote that clearly states the scope for a given guideline or even for a section of a guidelines.
 * For example "Scope: article title", "Scope: lede" or "Scope: article body"
 * We cannot expect wp to function smoothly unless it is made perfectly clear what falls within the scope of each guideline. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How to handle foreign terms and foreign names in article titles is surely usually defined by the appropriate MoS (regional), and this is not going to be found if there's no link to the MoS (regional) category. For example, an article on former PM Tanaka Kakuei (Japanese name order) should be titled Kakuei Tanaka, as you will find if you look in the MoS (Japan-related). Furthermore, this "rule" does not always apply, as explained here. So tell me, how are people going to work out the proper usage of foreign terms and foreign names in article titles without a link that allows them to find the appropriate MoS (regional) that explains it? LittleBen (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By flowing usage in reliable English language sources, and by following the relevant naming conventions for further guidance, not by following rules laid out in a style guide. -- PBS (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * People who arbitrarily decide naming conventions without following MoS guidelines are likely to have their edits reverted, and they may be whacked or even blocked by the MoS thought police.
 * The problem with your suggestion is that most people don't have a clue how to do Internet research, and most Wikipedia users can't even figure out how to search Wikipedia Categories. This is why I think that knowledge of Internet research techniques should be a critical part of making verifiable, neutral POV, commonsense decisions—about which article title is most appropriate, and whether diacritics should be used in article titles, for example.
 * Here I tried to add links to make the importance of research and the "how" (process) clear, but was repeatedly reverted.
 * If people know about Google Insights for Search then it is often easy for them to find which rendering of a word or name is most searched for, like this (note: sports category) or like this. (Since articles are unlikely to be read if people don't find them when they search, this is surely one of the strongest WP:COMMONSENSE reasons for generally not using diacritics in English Wikipedia article titles. Google doesn't index Wikipedia redirects, so switching to diacritics in an article title—when most searches are without diacritics—is likely to make an article drop in Google's rankings.) If it's not found then it won't be read.
 * These tennis examples come from discussions related to tennis articles here and here. The issue of diacritics is still controversial, and discussion is still continuing.
 * Unless people can find links to—and learn—how to research stuff adequately, then in future it's possible that Wikipedia will no longer be a widely-respected and trustworthy resource. LittleBen (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming, of course, that people who "don't have a clue how to do Internet research" can somehow find this policy. And that even if they do, they won't respond by abandoning Google statistics in favor of the unsupported "yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes it is" debating style one often reads on Wikipedia. Art LaPella (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that having mountains of policies scattered everywhere and not linked to each other is a really bad situation. Creating a humongous MoS by trying to stuff rules for every single language under the sun into the main MoS instead of linking to regional MoS (and involving people with local knowledge about what is acceptable) is also bad news. The best way to go is to slim down MoS by moving the trivia (things that the great majority of people would never be able to see, and things that do not affect Wikipedia's trustworthiness—like en-dash vs. hyphen) out of the main MoS and into subservient articles. If you can't do it, then maybe nobody can. I think Wikipedia is very lucky to have you as a contributor. LittleBen (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Ben, you are not making any sense. We have redirects to take care of searching without diacritics in wikipedia.  What evidence do you have that Google has trouble finding articles with diacritics in titles?  It seems to be able to go from plain names to accented wp articles in spite of your protests, as in this search or this.  If there are cases that actually cause problems with searching, show us, instead of making up non-existent problems.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Google search is one of my fields of expertise. I do not make things up. Other people have misgivings too. Discussion and particularly adequate research is preferable to having people banned for having different viewpoints. LittleBen (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given I just did a dozen Google searches for non-diacritical versions of article names that include diacritics here on Wikipedia, and all 12 came up with the correct Wikipedia article as the first hit, I call your expertise into question. It would seem quite obvious that you are incorrect. Resolute 13:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem with common name of one page
I do not know is this right place for my question and if it is not, please direct me to page where I can ask my question. There is problem with name of this page: Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Page was started in 2 May 2006 and original name of page was "Nedić's Serbia":. Looks that name of page was changed multiple times and that last change was made by User:DIREKTOR in 7 May 2012:. I read WP:TITLE policy and this policy say: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." I think that last name of page do not conforms to WP:TITLE. There is just one source in English language that support name "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia":. I proposed voting for new name for page:. But User:Peacemaker67 defend current page name and claim that current title conforms to WP:TITLE. My question for expert administrators here is: do name backed by only one source in English language conforms to WP:TITLE? There are several more names that Wikipedia can use for this page and all of them are backed by more sources than current page name (some of other names are "Military Administration in Serbia", "Nedić's Serbia", "Serbia under German occupation"). What you think which of listed names is best supported by WP:TITLE? Nemambrata (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article talk page is the appropriate place to address this issue. If you cannot get a consensus there to support your proposed change it is entirely inappropriate for you to be seeking to enlist support for your argument here.  This page is about article titles in general and not about a disagreement on the title of a specific one. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  05:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think discussion of WP:COMMONNAME is off base in this case... that policy provision really applies to articles that use "names" as their title, and the current title is more a description of the subject than a name for it (indeed, I am not sure that there is a common "name" for the historical geo-political area that is the subject of the article) ...  we allow some degree of flexibility when it comes to descriptive titles.  I will leave it to discussion at the article talk page to determine whether or not there is a better description of the subject that could be used as an article title. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

COMMONNAME: Talk:Jane Harrison (GC)
A discussion in which at least one contributor has recommended that we should title an article using the individual's full name (although she didn't use it) in order to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. Contributions welcome. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Precision problems
We had a bunch of edits to the precision section today, but they do nothing to clarify or restore the meaning of "precision". They seem instead to be designed to only re-inforce the idea that precision is for nothing but avoid title collisions. Can we work on restoring a bit of what precision was for? I'll look again at the history and try to pull out a good description... Dicklyon (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The history of this provision is summarized here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_36. I have incorporated the breifest hint of a positive value for precision, based on the old versions before a few editors whittled it down to nothing but disambiguation, and bofore Born2cycle tried to cast precision as a strictly negative property of a title. Let's keep the positive aspect of precision a bit distinct from the avoidance of over-precision in the case of article title collisions. Some further elaboration and separation seems like a good idea, but the bare hint of what we mean by precision as a good property of a title is now restored to the precision section at least. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My edits today were not supposed to solve that problem. They only cleaned, tweaked, simplified and rearranged the existing text. They were not at all designed to reinforce the idea that precision is to avoid title collision. They were designed to reinforce whatever was already written there with too many words. They helped you to see better than before a problem which was already there, and that I had not detected. Otherwise, I would have corrected it myself! Paolo.dL (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Paolo, and I appreciate your help in tuning it up. Sorry if I implied that your edits were part of some other agenda; I've become overly sensitive to such things in this policy page.   Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me say how much I appreciated your contribution: thanks to your restoring edit, the section title "Precision and disambiguation" and the shortcut WP:PRECISION eventually and for the first time made sense to me. However, I still cannot understand why there's a separate section for precision, and not for other criteria listed in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Paolo.dL (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See what I mean? In this edit, Born2cycle restores the more negative interpretation of precision as something to be avoided, claiming it's "well understood and long supported", essentially saying that there is no positive role for precision to "indicate accurately the topical scope of the article" as it had been for many years before the turmoil of 2009. See the history linked above. I think we need to fix this. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have moved his phrasing about identifying to the topic unambiguously to the positive side; at least that says we want some precision. Is this an OK compromise? Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

B2C has now done multiple additional edits to try to re-establish his position that precision is bad, essentially reverting me and SarekOfVulcan; and without joining this discussion. That's a problem. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I simply restored the longstanding wording at this point. As I said in my edit summary, I don't understand Sarek's objection to the version he reverted, as the part he reverted was longstanding wording as well.  I disagree with your characterization of the longstanding wording as having no positive side. This is the longstanding wording:
 * Titles usually use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
 * The whole first clause, everything before the comma, is positive. Then, after the comma, there is a limitation clause.
 * Before Sarek's revert, this is what was there:
 * Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, but no more precise than that.
 * Let's say that's Version 2. To me, V2 has the same meaning as the original longstanding wording, but the positive part is more predominant, which is what I thought you wanted.  Version 1 is the version you had, and to which Sarek reverted:
 * Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, but not overly precise.
 * The "not overly precise" language in V1 is new. The "no more precise than that" wording in V1 simply is rewording of the longstanding wording which said "only as precise as [that] (where [that] refers to necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously).   Is the "no" a problem?  How about this?
 * Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, but only as precise as that.
 * Personally, I think "no more precise than that" is more clear than "only as precise as that", but the intended meaning is ultimately the same. No?  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, "no more precise than that" means that titling the article Bothell, Washington is against policy -- it must be named Bothell. "Not overly precise" disallows Bothell (city), King and Snohomish Counties, Washington, USA, but allows Bothell, Washington. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and US city names are one of the very few exceptions to that. Anyway, now you're talking about changing the meaning of the wording, which is not how this endeavor started. The problem with V1 is "but not overly precise" is vague as compared to the original "only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously", or V2's "no more precise than [enough to identify the topic of the article unambiguously]". I know that's exactly what you and Dick are trying to remove, but it's been in there a very long time, for good reason, and does reflect actual practice, both past and current (except for US city names).   --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And except for royalty and some aspects for the tree of life topics and any number of other exceptions. Do we really need to encode a pretense in policy? older ≠ wiser 01:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Precision has gotten more influential in royalty. Plant articles that use scientific Latin names when the common English name is sufficiently precise are an exception too.  There might be a few others that favor following a pattern per consistency, but those are the exceptions.  Those exceptions aside, which are accounted for with the use of "usually" in the wording, the precision criterion as written certainly applies to the vast majority of our articles, and always has.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We went round and round on this before. Maybe an RFC is in order, where anyone can propose a rewording of the precision section, and we discuss a bit and then vote for which ones we think move us in the right direction. After that, a bit more discussion, and decide what to do. Does that seem reasonable? Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My prediction: months from now, someone will justify France (country) because of this new text. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
Let's be practical:
 * 1) Sometimes, we prefer titles that are more precise than needed to be unambiguous. For instance, we prefer:
 * 2) * Bothell, Washington over Bothell. Although Bothell is unambiguous, and hence precise enough, we prefer a more precise and more easily recognizable title (see WP:PLACE).
 * 3) Sometimes, we prefer titles that are less precise than needed to be unambiguous. Namely, the titles of articles which refer to a primary topic are, by definition, ambiguous (see WP:Primary topic). Indeed, they are disambiguated by means of a subtitle (e.g. "This article is about the country. For other uses, see France (disambiguation)"). For instance, we prefer:
 * 4) * France over France (country) (see comment above by Enric Naval; see France (disambiguation))
 * 5) * Perth over Perth (Australia) (see Perth (disambiguation)).
 * 6) * Energy over Energy (phisics) (see Energy (disambiguation)).

Everyone agrees Consensus has been already reached about this! (see WP:Primary topic and WP:PLACE). Is it so difficult to translate it into a criterion? None of the sentences suggested above to describe this criterion is sufficiently detailed to explain this. We need some more detail. For instance:


 * It is not true to say that Everyone agrees about prefering Bothell, Washington over Bothell. Born2cycle among others have argued long and vigorously against that convention. The situation has been fairly quiescent recently, as there appears to be a sort of grudging acceptance of the U.S. city convention now addressed in occasional individual move discussions. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Also British places are usually specified more precisely than American places for cultural reasons. It is quite common for Americans to say for example "Birmingham, Alabama" while a Brit is very unlikely to say (or write) "Birmingham, West Midlands" or "Birmingham, England", to a certain degree it is a "National varieties of English issue" coupled to natural language usage. -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus has been reached about the two statements above, but currently the precision criterion would reject the first statement! The alternative criterion suggested by Born2cycle is too strict and would reject both! If the criterion is based on previously reached consensus, as I proposed, we can avoid further useless and time consuming fights. It is wise for everybody to abide to consensus. Paolo.dL (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's probably more complicated than that. Some cities in the U.S. are automatically primary topics. British cities are supposed to be more closely defined, but often are not. And Canada has a whole group of editors who have determined city by city whether any has a duplicated name and which can be listed as a primary topic. This has resulted in some very esoteric Canadian names with no other information in the title that would even identify it as a town. The point I am trying to make is that there are country-by-country local naming conventions. Neotarf (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I modified my proposal (see above). The goal is the same, but now I distinguished more clearly the (strict) criterion from the (codified) exceptions. I think the text is now better structured, much easier to understand, and less questionable. See above.

Neotarf, what you wrote is true, but I would not worry too much about it. We cannot specify every detail of WP:PLACE in this general article. My proposal is already more detailed than the previous ones. A more detailed proposal is likely to produce disagreement, rather than solving this never-ending conflict. In my proposal, Being more detailed than that is a suicide. What's important is writing a criterion that allows for some flexibility (tradeoff with other criteria), but not too much flexibility (undetermined level of freedom). Valid exceptions must include both Guitar Energy (ambiguous and hence not precise enough, according to the current version of the criterion) and Bothell, Washington (unambiguous, but too precise according to the text proposed by Born2cycle, as there exists a less precise title that is also unambiguous). We will stop fighting about nothing and move on if we can accept this. Paolo.dL (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Mother Teresa is the example for a valid title that is as precise as needed to be unambiguous (no more, no less).
 * Bothell, Washington is just an example for a valid title that may appear too precise, while
 * Guitar Energy is just an example for a valid title that may appear not precise enough.


 * I think you may be conflating issues. Precision is not the reason (or at least not the only reason) that Bothell, Washington and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are prefered over Bothell and Mozart even though the shorter terms are redirects to the primary topic. Other stylistic matters affect the determination beyond precision alone. older ≠ wiser 12:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your criticism is not constructive. I am trying to solve a fight. Are you interested in helping me? If possible, find another example in which other stylistic matters do not affect the determination. But I think that a title is never selected according only to a single criterion. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've explained what fight it is that you're trying to solve very clearly. Substituting one possibly problematic example for another is not progress. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The example about United Kingdom is not "possibly problematic", but totally inappropriate, as United Kingdom is not a precise title! In other words, it is a proper example for an exception to the precision criterion, not for its application. (see my proposal above) Paolo.dL (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * United Kingdom to my mind remains a far clearer illustration. United Kingdom IS precise enough for it to be the title of the article. "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" IS an actual, official name for the subject. "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791)" on the other hand is an entirely artificial contruct. There is no obvious reason why anyone would want to use that as the title. older ≠ wiser 00:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that United Kingdom is precise enough to be a title for an article about "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But not as precise as needed to be unambiguous. You are right about "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791)". So, let's use Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta versus Mother Teresa, which should make both of us happy. Paolo.dL (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I modified my proposal, taking into account the contribution by Bkonrad (alias "older ≠ wiser"). Other advices? Paolo.dL (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Paolo, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think that Bkonrad made a good point that you missed when he said "Other stylistic matters affect the determination beyond precision alone." That is, precision is but one criterion; it doesn't need to specify any hard rule that would then need exceptions to get around it.  You can just as well point out that Bothell is plenty precise, but Bothell, Washington is much more recognizable (to most people, "Foobar, Washington" is "recognizable" as a city in Washington state USA, even it doesn't exist). And guitar (instrument) is very precise, but almost nobody would think that guitar would be anything else, or less precise, so precision provides very little to go against conciseness on that one; that's what primaryname is supposed to go, but it gets way overapplied in genuinely ambiguous situations (like Perth, famously).  Certainly Wolfgang Mozart is precision enough, or at least certainly primary, so why didn't we use that more concise term than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?  In this case, it's probably recognizability again that tilts the scale.  I think your proposal comes close to falling into Born2cycle's style of trying to making naming into an algorithm.  It would be better if we could just describe the virtues of precision, recognizability, and so on, fairly, in a way like we used to, and let editors do the tradeoffs. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Dicklyon. You may have misunderstood my goal, or I may have not explained it yet clearly enough. I am not describing a rigid "algorithm". On the contrary, I am helping the readers to understand that the policy allows for some flexibility ("tradeoffs" with other criteria). I do not give rules for that flexibility. I only give examples. In other words, I do understand Bkonrad's sentence, and your comments about "tradeoffs" between criteria, and indeed I think we should mention this idea in WP:PRECISION. A vague text like the current one in WP:PRECISION only obtains the effect to be challenged by editors who legitimately want a stricter criterion, just because it is less vague. In other words, the wide consensus existing about flexibility, and its sound rationale, must be explained as they are not immediately understood by editors. That's why I modified my proposal accordingly two days ago. Paolo.dL (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I modified my proposal again today, taking into account Dicklyon's contribution. For instance, I agree that, for most people, Guitar is precise enough to be unambiguous. I did not use the example about Perth, as it may be controversial, but I used Energy instead of Guitar, as Energy is a more ambiguous term (at least for people who are not familiar with physics). I also explained that a primary topic is not precise enough to be unambiguous, but precise enough to be understood by most people (see also my latest answer to Bkinrad about United Kingdom). Paolo.dL (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Paolo.dL I am finding some of what you are proposing reasonable, but from some of what you have written I think you are off target. For example you write "We cannot specify every detail of WP:PLACE in this general article". This is not a general article it is a policy. PLACE is a naming convention (guideline) that explains and supplements this policy. US places have the format they do for Wikipdia historic reasons -- back in 2002 a bot was used to create 1,000 of them using the format they have (see Ram-Man and Rambot). So US place names are not useful examples to use because so many have already been created and they have a format that differs from the rest of the planet. I am broadly in agreement with what older/wiser wrote above and your dismissal "Your criticism is not constructive. I am trying to solve a fight. Are you interested in helping me?" does not seem to me to be solving a fight but creating one. older/wiser asked "I don't think you've explained what fight it is that you're trying to solve very clearly." Nor do I. What is the fight you are trying to solve? -- PBS (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There has been an edit war recently, discussed right above my proposal, in, and below, in . It has not been solved yet, and seems to be about some changes made in 2009 (Dycklyon calls them "the turmoil of 2009"). This war is so difficult to solve that Born2cycle, in section , requested "the assistance of an uninvolved administrator to restore the stable wording of the precision criterion".
 * WP:PLACE provides an example of over-precision. It would be nice if we could say that it is the only example. However, according to older≠wiser, there are several other examples, which include "royalty and some aspects for the tree of life topics and any number of other exceptions". Please let me know if you have other examples. If you agree, in this proposal we can say something like that:
 * The only examples of insufficient or excessive precision are described in specific guidelines, such as WP:Primary topic, WP:PLACE, WP:ROYALTY.
 * But I would like to know also Dicklyon's and older≠wiser's opinion about that. A similar sentence already exists, but it only refers to "the main" exceptions to the precision criterion (not all of them). I think that this approach is more conservative, more realistic, and less questionable, but I will abide to consensus.
 * The discussion at the beginning of this section (before my proposal) is about these exceptions to the precision criterion. I started this proposal with this sentence: "Let's be practical". I mean that these exceptions exist and are used profusely. They are not sporadic. We only need to find the most appropriate way to describe them. This is the wisest way to deal with their existence. Providing information about the interaction between different criteria is enlightening. We won't get stable consensus about vague statements. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you it helps put it in context but, I am not sure how much of the archives you have read. There was a loooooooooong discussion about this issue in the last quarter of last year. It revolved around some titles that Tony1 wanted to rename. I think the first example was in the section Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 33 but there are lots of sections after that. Wikipedia tend to use the official short legislative names as used in the Commonwealth (The official short name for an Act followed by the year) -- unless thre is a well known common name for the Act. We do not normally include the country/state in the name unless it is needed for disambiguation purposes. Tony1 is/was of the opinion that we should add more to the name not for disambiguation purposes but for clarity. Acts of parliaments are a good test example to use--because legislators already give Acts unique names, so making the names longer is usually about additions for clarity rather than disambiguation--but the principle can be extended to other fields. He did not find a majority of editors in favour of making this change. -- PBS (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the change was rejected, this seems to be another example for titles that need to meet the precision criterion. Even if the change had been accepted, I don't think we should discuss in WP:PRECISION every possible specific exception to the principle criterion. We only need to warn readers that
 * exceptions do exist,
 * they can be only accepted when they are supported by other sufficiently "heavy" stylistic considerations (e.g., other naming criteria, or WP:Primary topic) and validated by consensus
 * most of them are (luckily) described in specific guidelines.
 * For that, we just need two examples of validated exceptions: one for excessive precision, and the other for insufficient precision. Let me know if you agree. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about PBS's latest contribution, I modified the proposal to make clear that all the exceptions to the precision criterion need to be "validated by consensus". The first sentence of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA alredy says that this is required whenever there is more than one possible title "for any given article". In this case, consensus is even more important. Dicklyon, I hope you agree that this is not an algorithm. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice that the first sentence of the proposal is almost identical to the first sentence in WP:PRECISION (just less vague). The following sentence is only meant to briefly summarize what you all explained in this talk page, so that you won't have to repeat it again. It is neither meant to be an algorithm, nor to authorize or encourage a change like that proposed last year by Tony1 and described above by PBS (17:48, 16 July 2012). The proposal has been modified repeatedly according to your comments. I just made it even shorter. I believe it is now mature for publication. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the unnecessary precision of Bothell, Washington - which is titled contrary to how most WP articles are titled, including most articles about cities - is an example of anything, it's WP:IAR. The so-called "convention" has never had consensus support - it has merely also failed to develop consensus in opposition.  It's a stalemate at best, and has been for years.  Such an example has no place at WP:AT.  Changes to policy wording that portray aberrations as if they are the norm are unacceptable. But thanks for showing how such aberrations, if accepted, would unnecessarily complicate the policy by riddling it with messy exceptions and contradictions. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I described them as exceptions, not "the norm". Also, since most of them are described in guidelines, it is obvious that most editors agree that they are not "aberrations", but valid exceptions. I know that you don't like it, but I am just describing the current situation. You might be able to change it in the future, and in that case the second sentence will be removed. It does not matter whether we agree that these exceptions are valid or not. They do exist and they are by no means rare, so we just need to warn editors about their existance. Sharing knowledge is useful. Simply, more people will be aware that some exceptions are described in specific guidelines. Some people may regard them as stylistically valid, some others as aberrations. Paolo.dL (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would argue rather that it's normal, and not an exception, to title cities with city, state. The so-called "unnecessary precision" is an exception to B2C's minimalism; that interpretation of "precision" and "recognizability", where "conciseness" trumps all, is itself widely disputed.  So I think that listing these as "exceptions" goes too far in shoring up his interpretation as "normal".  Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently, Born2cycle does not agree with you about the fact that this proposal shores up "his interpretation as normal". This proposal simply describes the true situation much more clearly than the current text, which is too vague. Notice that my text does not say that "city, state" is "not normal". It only says it is a valid exception to one criterion, supported by a guideline. In our opinion, it is "normal" that some title may not completely meet ALL criteria, as some criteria cannot be (totally) met without disregarding others. In the opinion of others, it is not "normal". Paolo.dL (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand, but I disagree that this is an example over-precision, and don't want to see it portrayed as such. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But you can't deny that, although "city, state" is as precise as needed to be natural and recognizable, it is in some cases more precise than needed to be unambiguous. I am stating nothing else. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What I deny is that it's more precise than the usual precision criterion calls for. Dicklyon (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, but the "usual precision criterion" (i.e. the current version of the criterion) is purposedly vague, not because we don't know how to make it clear, but just because we are afraid to. It is not designed to explain, but to conceal. Not to be readable, but ambiguous. See below. I am sure you understand. Paolo.dL (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But if your intention is to make the usual precision criterion more clear, you need to first arrive at a clear understanding of what the community supports. Your edits seem instead to be bolstering the minimalist interpretation, which has never had widespread support, and directly contradicts the way the provision was accepted prior to 2009, which said that titles should be precise enough to define the topic of the article; B2C threw that out in favor of precision being a bad thing, such that you want just enough to not make names collide.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you became too suspicious. In short: And you reacted as if I had written "precision is bad"! You wrote twice in the article "...but avoid over-precision". I added the Mother Teresa example just to explain this sentence of yours. How can you fail to notice that, without mentioning exceptions, this sentence of yours is not only vague, but even more "minimalist" than my proposal? That's why Born2cycle hates my proposal. BritishWatcher below was afraid as you are, but he eventually understood the neutrality of my proposal. You are probably the only one who thinks I am biased. Let's be practical. What examples of specific titles are incorrectly explained or not allowed for in my proposal? Paolo.dL (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I wrote "precision is a goal, over-precision should be avoided"
 * 2) I even added examples to show that in some cases over-precision is good.


 * Paolo, it's not you that I'm suspicious of. But I don't like supporting the notion of "over precision", which inherently treats precision as bad; so, yes, "precision is good"; but no to calling good precision "over precision".  Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are being picky on my text, but not on yours, which is much worse. Let me explain. My text explicitly states that being over-precise may be good in some cases. The drawback you see in my text is trifling. Your text says "avoid over-precision", without explaining the boundary between precise and over-precise. This can be easily interpreted as more strict, less flexible, more negative and more minimalist than my text. Moreover, it is certainly less clear! Paolo.dL (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a text, and if I did it wouldn't include a negative spin on precision like "avoid over-precision"; I'd phrase it positively, more like it used to be when it said something like "precise enough to clearly indicate the topic of the article". Many of our titles are not nearly that precise, due to the interpretation that more precision than is needed to avoid collisions is "over precision".  Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether you like it or not, you inserted a paragraph containing the sentence "avoid over-precision" at the very beginning of WP:PRECISION. Later, you used the same sentence in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:
 * Revision as of 17:36, 7 July 2012, by Dicklyon (Precision and disambiguation: say what precision is for first, then what we need to do if that's not enough)
 * Revision as of 19:06, 7 July 2012, by Dicklyon (Deciding on an article title: rephrase precision bullet more positively)
 * The current versions of both WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:PRECISION still contain that sentence, and have a significant drawback: they do not explain the boundary between precise and "over-precise".
 * Paolo.dL (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary
In my opinion, both Born2cycle and Dicklyon seem to be afraid to state the obvious, possibly because neither likes the current situation. They both prefer being vague, either by hiding the existance of a number of validated exceptions which actually do exist, or by using a vague formulation of the criterion (the current formulation) which makes it difficult for the reader to understand the difference between precise and "overly precise". But being vague is not a good service to the readers, who deserve to know what we all (including Born2cycle and Dicklyon) know and the article does not explain. Does anybody agree with me? Paolo.dL (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just arrived at this debate and read through briefly the conversation, sorry but id just like to check something as the bits about country articles concerned me. Would this proposal in anyway impact on the position of any current country article, or would this alteration have no impact on the current positions which go by WP:Commonname? Common name in my opinion is far more important than precision when it comes to article titles, particularly of countries. Which is why almost every single country article on wikipedia is at a common name, not the full official precise name. If this alteration would change the balance in terms of precision vs commonname, then i strongly oppose any change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it makes clear exactly what you wrote, i.e. that there exist validated exceptions to the precision criterion, which result from the application of other naming criteria. Currently, readers are not even warned that WP:Commonname may in some cases prevail over WP:Precision! My proposal is only meant to explain the current situation from a neutral point of view, not to change the balance in terms of precision vs commonname. Notice that WP:Commonname is based on two naming criteria: naturaleness and recognizability, which are exactly the two naming criteria I mention in my first example (about Bothell, Washington). Paolo.dL (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, thanks for clarifying. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Rationale. The current versions of both WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:PRECISION contain the similar sentences "...not overly-precise" and "...avoid over-precision". They have a significant drawback: they do not explain the boundary between precise and "over-precise". This can be easily interpreted by readers as a strict and minimalist approach, which does not allow for the more flexible approach adopted in some guidelines (e.g. WP:PLACE, see comments above by Bkonrad and BritishWatcher). My proposal is bold enough to define the boundary between precise and over-precise, but more importantly and nothwithstanding this: So, my proposal is a significant improvement with respect to the current text. Also, notice that my proposal was repeatedly modified, taking into account the contributions of Bkonrad (alias "older ≠ wiser"), Neotarf, Dicklyon, and BPS. I am asking you to compare my proposal to the current text, not to an hypothetical (either minimalist or more flexible) approach that you would like to be adopted. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It explains that being over-precise (e.g. Bothell, Washington) or slightly ambiguous (e.g., Energy) is a good idea in some cases. In other words, it explains that flexibility is appreciated in some cases, provided that there's a good reason to be flexible (see below).
 * It explains what Dicklyon called "tradeoff", and BritishWatcher called "balance" between criteria, which is the reason why we want to be flexible in some cases (not only in the application of the precision criterion). This balance is not an invention of mine, nor Dicklyon's, nor BritishWatcher's. It is already described in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (..."It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others"...).
 * It cannot be interpreted as a policy change, as it just explains, carefully and more clearly than before, the "balanced" approach currently adopted in Wikipedia, as already described in guidelines such as WP:Primary topic, WP:PLACE, or WP:ROYALTY, which is neither too strict (or "minimalist"), nor too flexible.

Since nobody objected to my rationale, after modifying my proposal according to your comments, I inserted it in the article with this edit summary: "This text is the result of a long discussion (see Summary). Even though some may not like it, the precision criterion is currently applied with some flexibility, according to guidelines." Paolo.dL (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As you may realize, I still object to the idea that Bothell, Washington is an example of "overly precise". Let's see what others say on that.  But one more thing you might want to consider fixing is the language that came in with this edit of yours: "When additional precision (or detail in more recent versions) is necessary to distinguish an article title from another...", where previously it had the admittedly awkward "When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name...".  The point is that precision and ambiguity are not about distinguishing titles, but about distinguishing topics.  Work on that?  Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I know. I read your previous comments with extreme attention. By the way I wish to thank you, as well as Bkonrad, Neotarf, BPS, Born2cycle, and BritishWatcher, for providing precious information throughout this discussion. As I explained in more detail above, the previous text did not specify whether Bothell, Washington was overly precise or not, but being extremely vague it was likely to be interpreted that way.
 * I removed the sentence "Bothell, Washington is overly precise", and simplified my proposal. My proposal was not meant to simply state that Bothell, Washington is "overly precise" from any possible viewpoint. It was meant to explain that Bothell is precise enough to be unambiguous, which implies that Bothell, Washington is over-precise if and only if your only goal is to be unambiguous, but as precise as needed to be natural and recognizable. And I am sure you agree that this is true. This way to describe flexibility is extremely helpful. Nothwithstanding the strict definition of the precision criterion, the examples make it difficult for readers to deny that flexibility does exist and is supported by guidelines.
 * You are perfectly right about the fact that precision is "not about distinguishing titles, but about distinguishing topics". See my edit. Feel free to edit yourself.
 * Paolo.dL (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good; thanks for replacing "Bothell, Washington is overly precise" with a more appropriate statement. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)