Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 43

Sega title saga
This RfC and ongoing unresolved title issue could use some fresh eyes from title experts. Please see Talk:Sega_Genesis. --B2C 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Diacritics in Latin alphabet European names titles
I've noted over the last 2 years that the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the little group of editors (some of whom are not notably active article space contributors) at WT:AT is out of line with the consensus of the community on the subject of full spelling of Latin alphabet European names. The local group here includes at least 1 of the most dedicated anti-diacritic campaigners on en.wp and a couple of editors who sympathize with the position, while at the same time 100% of en.wp's Latin alphabet European BLPs use full diacritic unicode titles (except for 1 WP:POINTY exception). The dislocate between guideline and reality is both evident, and potentially disruptive, since the guideline re. (i.e. against) use of full spelling of Latin alphabet European names here occasionally generates confusion outside WP:AT itself.

For this reason the guidance here is probably going to have to go to RfC at some point to attempt to bring what WP:AT says into line with reality and near universal article-contributor consensus in the project. One small improvement that can be made now however, would be to correctly link to WP:Reliable sources. The bluelink [Wikipedia:Verifiability|reliable sources] is currently pipelinked away from WP:Reliable sources to WP:Verifiability, which is a different issue. I propose to correct the pipelink to direct to the correct page. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with Unicode or fonts. Those are underware.  It's about diacritics.  Unicode also includes Cyrillic and Greek and CJK characters among others, but we try to limit ourselves to the Roman alphabet, because those are the characters that English readers have some familiarity with, and can cope with even if they don't know what the diacritics mean.  I agree that we should usually use them, except when a name has become very commonly adopted into English without as an exonym.  Not all cases will be easy to decide.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dicklyon, evidently I was using "unicode" as shorthand, I have changed the above to read full spelling of Latin alphabet European names, since that is what is meant. Given that 100% of BLPs (minus 1) are full spelling of Latin alphabet European BLP names, do you believe that those circa 500,000 BLPs appear in high-MOS full diacritic unicode (glossy hardback academic books) more often than they appear in html sources like sports websites? In other words, are en.wp editors following the instruction to count the number of appearances in high-MOS sources vs. number of appearances in low-MOS sources? Take Lech Wałęsa, a typical example, does that title agree with the guideline here to count appearances in high-MOS (10) and low-MOS (12,400) sources? Is the guideline here out of line with article reality or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Diacritics does not mean non-English letters. Diacritic modified English letters are not the same thing as full spelling of Latin alphabet European names, since (1) the true Latin alphabet is smaller than the English alphabet by a few letters, (2) European Latin-derived alphabets contain several characters from non-Latin alphabets, or which do not exist in English alphabets at all. ETH, THORN and ESZETT come to mind as the most prominent examples of non-English letters that are not diacritic modified letters. They clearly are not mostly recognizable by most English language users from outside of Europe itself. The ESZETT looks like a B or Beta and clearly engenders confusion, and the lowercase ETH isn't what most people would think it is (a lower case "O" with an accent) so clearly engendering confusion. THORN looks like someone did a p/d/q incorrectly, which can't happen on a computer, so is uninterpretable. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi 76.65.128.222, yes, I think everyone knows this, I think everyone also knows that there are cases such as eszett which are not . What I said above is that "100% of en.wp's Latin alphabet European BLPs use unicode titles." Is what I said correct or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of (re-)renaming this section to something that's hopefully unambiguous and precise. This isn't about the use of the full set of characters available under Unicode, or the use of any particular alphabet; this is about whether we can/should use diacritics in titles. And while we're at it: IIO, if I'm not mistaken, 100% of Wikipedia's everything uses Unicode characters, because the site itself uses UTF-8. If you tried to use anything else, it would not display correctly. —Frungi (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Frungi
 * You are correct in your question, I can confirm that 100% of wikipedia uses unicode characters, because the site itself uses UTF-8, however not all sports websites cited as sources make full use of the possibilities of unicode.
 * And, no it's not about we can/should use diacritics in titles, we already do - my question is does anyone object to correctly pipelinking WP:reliable sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That correction seems entirely uncontroversial, but I don't see such a link in this policy. Are you sure you've got the right page? Or maybe I'm just missing it. —Frungi (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Frungi, yes, you are right, my mistake, on this page WP:UE "reliable sources" is not linked/pipelinked at all, it is 'dead' black text. I was confusing WP:UE with WP:EN, where it is so pipelinked, and based on your comment above I have made this edit there and noted on Talk there. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The linkage should be to WP:SOURCES that is the policy on reliable sources. It should not be linking to guidelines. This page used to point to WP:SOURCES I am not sure when that was changed but I propose that it is changed back. -- PBS (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The linkage was changed here at 16:00, 17 August 2010. -- PBS (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With the telling editsummary "to avoid creative misinterpretations". Agathoclea (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please expand on you cryptic remark. -- PBS (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Frungi, I made the edit there as per your "entirely controversial" comment and was reverted by PBS. As I said I believe there's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of a small group of editors at WP:UE and WP:EN/WP:DIACRITICS who are at odds with the project as a whole on this issue and that an RfC will probably be necessary to remove the disruption caused by having a guideline WP:POINTedly at odds with article title reality. But in the meantime, how many editors here in addition to PBS object to bluelink reliable sources actually linking to WP:Reliable sources both in WP:UE (here) and WP:EN (there)? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As WP:SOURCES points to WP:RS "for further information," I would not object to the text "reliable sources" linking to either one. But I wonder why such a trivial matter as which project page is linked seems to be such a large focus of what seems like it should be a discussion about how articles should be titled. Shouldn't these be two separate discussions to avoid confusion and distraction? —Frungi (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Frungi, in an ideal world yes. However given the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem at this Talk page I think it's best to be upfront about a principal reason for wanting "reliable sources" bluelink to actually lead to WP:Reliable sources. But this should be a separate discussion and is. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Frungi, for a long time WP:V carried a statement that when WP:V and WP:RS appeared to contradict each other WP:V took precedence. This (AT) is a policy page: it is better that it links to WP:SOURCES as section in the policy WP:V, than to a guideline WP:RS so that there is no confusion over what reliable sources means. -- PBS (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Frungi, I won't waste too much time on this as this is just 2 pages (WP:UE and WP:EN) and two statements which are largely ignored by the editing community since they conflict with article title reality and the overwhelming community consensus. Pace PBS' comments there is now confusion about what reliable sources means, which is why WP:UE and WP:EN mention of "reliable sources" actually linking to WP:Reliable sources would be helpful. Allowing readers to click through from bluelink mention "reliable sources" to see what WP:Reliable sources actually says would confirm that article title reality is in line with WP:Reliable sources definition of WP:Reliable sources as WP:RS "sources reliable for the statement being made", and head off the disruptive interpretation that (e.g.) sources which do not carry French accents are reliable sources for the spelling of French names.
 * It's unfortunate that a number of editors at WP:UE and WP:EN should have taken up such an antagonistic position against article title reality, whether that is in denial of that reality, or in deliberately wording guidelines to conflict with that reality. But it seems no one is greatly concerned - article contributors ignore the guideline, and the writers of the guideline ignore article contributors. So the situation can be left. This may not be the only example of a MOS guideline which is wildly out of touch with article reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This should be resolved in a bit more general manner, cf. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have recently closed Talk:Zürich in favor of moving Zurich to Zürich. A change in policy arising from this discussion would affect the status of that change. Cheers! bd2412  T 02:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:BD2412 I don't think this discussion will help in relation to Zurich since Zurich claims English exonym status, which villages and tennis players don't. I only commented in that RM, my feeling is that Zürich is moving from exonym to endonym (per Lonely Planet Eastern Europe 2012 "Air Berlin (AB; www.airberlin.com) Flies to Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich, Zürich and Geneva." which is the pattern seen in other English exonyms where the exonym is only distinguished by lack of an accent or umlaut. This phenomenon is covered in relevant literature such as UN conf on geo names. It seems pretty much inevitable that all exonyms which are distinguished only by lack of a simple French/German/Spanish accent/umlaut will eventually transit to being treated as typographic limits rather than genuine exonyms. This has already happened for modern Cádiz, happened for modern Aragón (and en.wp is lagging behind the change and fighting the sources), but in the Zurich case the en.wp move is perhaps ahead of the print sources change - but nevertheless going in the same direction. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Stylized non-trademark titles
I’m copying this from WT:MOS since this page seems more active: Do we have a guideline or consensus about non-trademark names, like song and album titles, that use strange stylization? I can’t find anything, but my impulse would be to apply MOS:TM to any oddly styled titles and use the most standard-looking format in common usage. —Frungi (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would tend to stick a bit more closely to the original artist-made titles of creative works than to merely commercial products. bd2412  T 18:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First, let's be clearer about what exactly we are talking about? On one hand you have stylized typography.  For example, the Beatles used a stylized typography on most of their early albums and on Ringo's drum kit.  Beatles logo.png. On the other hand we have stylized spelling. For example, the way deadmau5 is stylized with the number 5 instead of an "s".
 * To me the key to figuring out whether to present a name with stylization in Wikipedia is to determine the stylization is used by reliable sources when talking about the topic. When talking about the Beatles, very few (if any) sources use that band's stylized typography ... so neither does Wikipedia.  On the other hand, when talking about Deadmau5, lot's of sources use the artist's stylized spelling ... so Wikipedia does as well.  This is essentially a function of WP:COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Deadmau5" is an exception to the rule - from recent discussions, it seems 100% of sources use this, so we would be at odds with the rest of the world if we didn't. Otherwise, I'd say apply WP:NCCAPS or MOS:TM - the same principle would apply to non-TMs with similar stylings.  See Se7en and all the other examples at MOS:TM.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Deadmau5 isn't an exception to the rule... it's a perfect example of the rule in action. I think you may misunderstand what the COMMONNAME "rule" actually says. In most (if not all) of the examples at MOS:TM, WP:COMMONNAME does not apply ... because the sources are mixed in how they present the name (for example, about half of the sources use "Se7en" and half use "Seven").  In other words, they are cases where we don't actually have a COMMONly used name to follow.  Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant "rule" as in MOS:TM, but it is one of the few exceptions where WP:COMMONNAME will "trump" the MOS on a style issue, due to the fact that every source uses it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We had a dispute a while ago about the film, Dot the i. The title is self-evidently intended to have a lowercase "i" (since you can't dot an I, unless you are speaking of the Turkish İ, which this film is not). Nevertheless, many sources capitalized the "I" in reviews and commentaries; others did not. The result of the two move discussions involving this title was to keep the "i" lowercase. This is, to me, a perfect example of artist's intent trumping other style considerations. bd2412  T 13:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, you'll find that is far from being a perfect example - it's a terrible example, as the requested move was closed as no consensus, despite their there being a consensus to move. The move review was poorly handled also.  There is however definitely no consensus to WP:IAR in that case.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There were nine !votes in support of moving (including the nominator), and nine !votes opposed to moving. There is no scenario under which that constitutes "their [sic] being a consensus to move". Virtually all of the support for moving was by reference to Wikipedia policy, not the actual merits of one title or another. This discussion is about what the policy should, in fact, be. The fact that half of the people in that discussion preferred substance over a mere recitation of policy indicates that the policy needs to be adjusted to match circumstances in the real world. bd2412  T 14:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my memory failed me - it was closed as not moved, despite there being strong policy and guideline based arguments for the move, and weak arguments along the lines of "it's what the poster says" against. At worst it should have been a no consensus. The move review was badly handled also.  So, yeah, not a good example.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is an excellent example of the need to expand upon article naming policy to state that where the artist has chosen a certain title styling for a creative work, and at least some reliable sources use this styling, then that styling should be permitted as an article title. bd2412  T 14:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that - I think it illustrates perfectly why we shouldn't permit it. I think the last paragraph of the lead at WP:NCCAPS explains it well, and may help Frungi, as it shows the ethos behind why we don't use "official" styling.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Dot the i" is also a terrible example of anything because the movie poster clearly shows a capital I being dotted by a blob of blood (and a lowercase "dot": "dot the I"). Why some people insist on seeing and wanting to ape a lowercase i there baffles me.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The movie poster is ambiguous; however YouTube the trailer is not, as it shows the title with a lowercase "i" in a title display at 2:01, and (most importantly) in the formal credits, at 2:13. bd2412  T 15:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant though, as we don't source style - we use WP:NCCAPS and our MOS for that. Hopefully this has answered Frungi's question.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If that policy clearly reflected the consensus of the community, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. bd2412  T 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I get the idea that people are trying to figure out what the "official" Stylization for a movie/song/album/artist/etc is. That's wrong... Remember that we do not necessarily use "official" names... nor should we necessarily use the "official" styling.  That said, I strongly feel that we should be "sourcing" style presentation.  It's time to create a COMMONSTYLE policy that echoes COMMONNAME.  We can not judge COMMONSTYLE usage on one movie poster or youtube trailer... we need to examine style usage in multiple reliable sources.  For example... To settle whether to present the movie's name as "Dot the I" or "Dot the i", we would need to see how the name is presented in a wide range of reliable sources... especially those that talk about the movie... industry magazines, news paper reviews, etc. (and since I have not done such an analysis, I have no opinion on which it should be).  The same is true with all other "styling" disputes.  If a significant majority of appropriate (reliable) sources present the topic/subject using a given stylization, then (assuming it is physically possible given the limitations of our software) Wikipedia should follow the sources and do so as well.   If, on the other hand, source presentation is more mixed... then we can say that there is no COMMONSTYLE, and we are free to discuss what presentations we (the article editors) think would be best and reach a consensus.  Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what happened in the Dot the i discussion (at least with regards to my participation in it). I provided reliable sources of exactly the kind you mention (industry magazines and newspaper movie reviews) showing use of the lowercase i. Of course, there are sources using it both ways, just as there were reviewers of U-Turn (1973 film) and of U Turn (1997 film) which left out the hyphen when it belonged in the title, or added the hyphen where it didn't belong, and just as a number of reviewers carelessly wrote about "Inglorious Bastards". If you were to put the Dot the i reviews on a scale, probably more sources weighed in favor of the uppercase I, but if the author's intent was to name the film with a lowercase "i", then this is no different from carelessly "correcting" the spelling of "Basterds". bd2412  T 17:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I’d prefer that guideline to say (I know it’s awfully worded, but still) to use standard-looking style if it could reasonably be said that such a style is in somewhat common use (as is the case with “Seven”, and not the case with “Deadmaus”). It shouldn’t be a matter of which style “wins”, but whether our preferred (lack of) style is actually used. But that’s a discussion for MOS:TM, and my question was about non-trademarked names that it does not apply to—or should it be applied to all stylized names regardless of legal status? —Frungi (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I like the idea of a COMMONSTYLE guideline... the legal status of the name does not matter... usage in sources is what matters. If a significant majority of sources present the name with a given stylization when talking about the subject, we would present the name with that stylization too.  If the sources don't stylize, then neither would we.  And if the sources are mixed, we discuss, argue and reach a consensus as to what we think is best in that specific instance.  Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We are really not talking about legal status here (except, perhaps, under some European Moral rights type of regime); in the United States, at least, the titles of individual works of art are not protected other than by trademark attaching to their commercial use. Nevertheless, if a majority of sources errantly identified Tarantino's World War II opus as "Inglourious Bastards", or wrote about K.D. Lang, we would be wrong to follow their mistake. bd2412  T 19:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, editors still have to use their best judgment and distinguish between mistakes and deliberate choices. —Frungi (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So do we have any such guideline, or anything that would contradict it, or anything? Or is MOS:TM currently the only place we directly address the matter (aside from capitalization)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frungi (talk • contribs)
 * I would say that MOS:TM doesn't really "address the matter" at all, since it applies to trademarks, and titles are not trademarks. It's the wild west out here. bd2412  T 20:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Frungi, do you have an example? I can't think what in particular wouldn't be covered by WP:NCCAPS or the MOS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This was prompted by a discussion (between two people) about Japanese song and album titles (which aren’t trademarked), since Japanese artists and labels have a habit of inserting characters like 〜 (wave dash) and ☆ (star) into some of their titles. Sometimes they’re purely decorative, and sometimes they serve the purpose of dashes or parentheses. —Frungi (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Moral rights
This discussion got me thinking about whether Wikipedia does, in fact, recognize the moral rights of artists. The principle is mentioned here, with respect to paraphrasing. It seems to me that, just as Wikipedia recognizes copyrights (and therefore will not allow copying of a copyright-protected work) and dignitary rights (and therefore would not allow libel or slander to occur either in the body of an article, or in an article title), we should recognize some measure of moral rights. Under Article IV of the Berne Convention, the author of the work has the right to have the title of the work appear on any copies of the work distributed. Presumably, this would be the title as chosen by the author, including any unconventional capitalization. I think it is a reasonable precaution to apply that to articles discussing such works, to the extent that this does not broach technical limitations or conflict with other legal regimes. bd2412 T 17:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no. It's not a legal concept here in the US. and there is nothing in the style guides suggesting it as a consideration.  Whether it should be, is another matter.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at it just from a reader point of view, unconventional capitalization (or punctuation, etc.) in titles could very likely hinder readability in prose. As a display title, it’s fine, but we don’t really use display titles. —Frungi (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can imagine some artists intentionally naming a work using a mix of camel case, letters, numbers, punctuation, and so on, just to make an artistic statement. I suppose a good example would be Prince's adoption of a symbol as his name, which lead to the papers calling him "the artist formerly known as Prince". If we were to recognize moral rights, I think they would still be trumped by at least technical limitations and readability concerns. Beyond that, as an intellectual property attorney, I would say that it would be difficult, but not impossible, for an artist in a moral rights country to get a court to issue an order demanding that we title our article on his work just as the artist titled the work. bd2412  T 03:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not just Japanese songs. See Jar~with~a~Twist, which I justed moved.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Article titles for transgender people
This policy (Wikipedia:Article titles) does not appear to deal gracefully with titles of articles on transgender individuals. In particular, the section on "Use commonly recognizable names" (WP:COMMONNAME) does not address a situation when someone declares a certain gender identity and coverage by organizations/media** shifts from using the old name to the new name.

**Shorthand for "major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals"

The case of Chelsea (formerly known as Bradley) Manning presents a great example. There is considerable debate on that article's talk page with regards to what the article should be titled. The debate is weighty and multifaceted, but the discussion here (on this talk page) should be limited to article titles and not to pronoun usage or any topic other than titles.

I see there being three major options to address the uncertainty many editors (including myself) feel with regards to this policy.

Option 1

Recent coverage by organizations/media should be weighed more heavily than older coverage when considering titles of articles about transgender individuals. Coverage produced after someone declares a given gender identity should be given more weight than coverage produced before the declaration. Reports using the person's previous name should be considered less weighty than more recent reports.

This proposal rejects, at least in the case of transgender individuals, the notion that the article title should not be changed until / if the sum of historic coverage of the new name outweighs the sum of historic coverage of the old name.

Whether this change should apply to all articles or just to articles about transgender individuals is another, related question.

Option 2

The titles of articles on transgender individuals should be exempted from the organizations/media coverage consideration. Instead of following the reports of organizations/media, Wikipedia should title articles according to the person's latest preferred name. The intent of this option is to respect the wishes of the transgender individual, and refer to him or her using the title he or she prefers. This proposal echoes MOS:IDENTITY, which currently does not address article titles but does address vocabulary.

Option 3

Keep the policy as it is. Do not change it.

In summary, I propose discussion about these three options:
 * 1) Recent coverage should be given more weight than older coverage in the case of titles of articles on transgender individuals. (Whether recent coverage should be given more weight for all articles on Wikipedia is another, broader topic).
 * 2) The titles of articles on transgender individuals should be exempt from considerations about coverage by organizations/media, and should instead follow the person's latest preferred name.
 * 3) This policy (Wikipedia:Article titles) should remain as it is. No change is necessary for transgender individuals.

Thoughts? CaseyPenk (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that it is abundantly clear that sometimes names change, and that these name changes can come about irrespective of a change in legal status. I would agree that "Recent coverage by organizations/media should be weighed more heavily than older coverage", but I would say that such a principle should apply universally, and not just with respect to gender changes. Chastity Bono became Chaz Bono, but by the same stroke, Ron Artest became Metta World Peace, Stacy Ferguson became Fergie, and Chad Johnson became Chad Ocho Cinco, then Chad Ochocinco, and is now back to Chad Johnson (although he has not legally changed it back, due to cost considerations). In each case, the new became the predominant usage in the media, and the article title eventually followed, changing to the new name. bd2412  T 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In any case, I do think it would be nice to clarify the policy on name changes. How do we handle situations in which some entity changes its name? That's an open question, and one of the core discussions we'll need to have. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been following the discussion on too many Noticeboards and Talk Pages and this is the first one I've encountered that actually thoughtfully talks about Manning in the light of how this should be addressed by Wikipedia Naming and BLP policies and whether those policies need to be amended to deal with notable people's name changes.
 * Personally, I think we should call people the name they identify with. This can change based on marriage (or divorce), pseudonyms, nicknames, showbiz names, etc. Think of it this way, if there was an actress everyone knew as "Margaret Sullivan Smith" and she got a divorce and wanted to be known as "Margaret Sullivan", wouldn't Wikipedia change her article title, even if people still referred to her as "Margaret Sullivan Smith"?
 * I was going through old bios of actors who worked circa 1900-1950 and I'd guess only 25% of them used their birth name. But, of course, Wikipedia refers to them how they chose to be identified in their careers, not by their given names.
 * But I just wanted to applaud this civil discussion. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is itself a weighty and multifaceted question that I can't say I have thought about enough to have a fully informed opinion about. But I did want to point out that, given that the MOS does require the body of articles to use (sorry!) pronouns reflecting their self-declared gender, it may be worth considering whether or not it's awkward to use a birth name with a unexpected pronoun.  Personally, it seems awkward to have sentences like "John was arrested when she went to the grocery store", but on the other hand, with certain article subjects the birth name may be so familiar that using the new name so that it matches the pronoun could be equally or more unexpected.  AgnosticAphid  talk 20:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. We have George Sand, Michael Michele, and Lou Henry Hoover (and, to stretch it a bit, James King (model), and Stanley Ann Dunham). bd2412  T 22:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly an excellent point. Perhaps my feeling of awkwardness with name/pronoun disagreement just reflects my lack of exposure to this issue.  AgnosticAphid  talk 22:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect to the issue B2C raises, had Manning announced a desire to be treated as a women without simultaneously announcing a name change, we would still change the pronouns in the article to reflect this new gender identity. bd2412  T 23:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I am uncomfortable with just adopting reliable sources' names wholesale based on a head count is that it is unclear to me how we would determine whether reliable source X's decision to continue using birth name was a deliberate choice or not. I totally agree that it makes sense to distinguish name and title from pronoun use now that you've shown me that male names can coexist with female pronouns in WP articles, but just using this example that I am familiar with (sorry again! especially since you need to have no opinion about it!) it's not clear to me that news sources that continue to use "Bradley Manning" necessarily made a deliberate decision to do so.  Furthermore, Manning's not really a good example, so leaving that article to one side, with regard to transgender people that are notable but not especially famous, it's entirely possible that a reliable source would ignorantly utilize a birth name without knowing that the person recently announced a they preferred a differently gendered name.  AgnosticAphid  talk 00:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My thought on the matter of naming is that we use the common name, except when that name is wrong. Mark Twain is a perfectly acceptable common name for Samuel Clemens, since it was his pseudonym. The Statue of Liberty is a perfectly acceptable common name for Liberty Enlightening the World, since it is a descriptive name given by the people. Sears Tower, however, is not acceptable, because it is incorrect. It's not a current valid name, nor was it an organic name given by the people. It was the name of a building, and now it is not. We should give more credence to accuracy than commonality. So, in the case of Manning, the decision seems clear: The article should be at Chelsea Manning. To do otherwise would either be inaccurate, or be an admission that names cannot be chosen by the parties involved, they can only be determined by a government or culture. --Golbez (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Option 1 - We should follow usage in reliable sources, as always, and, when there has been a recent change, give more weight to usage in recent publications. Absolutely reject Option 2 - WP needs to follow the lead set by reliable sources.  We do not make the decision to use the new name someone has announced they prefer to be called, unless and until other reliable sources do so.  We have no obligation or responsibility to be more sensitive sooner to such matters than the New York Times.  --B2C 21:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Option 3 - It pretty much is the normal for newer sources to have more weight than older ones when it comes to an article title, making into policy I don't think is really needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the RM discussion regarding the Chelsea Manning title? --B2C 22:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I am in the chat there, in the survey the most recent sources are being used to show the name Bradley is still being used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, many of the Support votes are doing so. But many of the opposes are arguing we should follow the person's request immediately, and not wait for reliable sources.  I favor Option 1 because I think we should be clear that even in such cases we follow sources, albeit the recent ones.  --B2C 23:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support option 2 as this option is in accordance with our existing policy on the matter per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP. Someone's name, and hence the title of a biographical article, is really a BLP issue, and the only requirement for using someone's correct name will be that we have reliable sources, not volume. You simply don't refer to someone using a name which they have explicitly asked not to be used, that's just not acceptable. In any case, media coverage prior to the name change is obviously irrelevant in regard to the title. Obviously, a new situation in that regard emerges when someone adopts a new name. The old name then simply becomes inaccurate/its use outdated. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (some minor changes added later) Josh Gorand (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Per your statement "In any case, media coverage prior to the name change is obviously irrelevant in regard to the title," would you support option 1 as a fallback or alternative? CaseyPenk (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I obviously agree with the principle that media coverage after the fact carries more weight. Although I still think this is a BLP issue and an issue of factual accuracy, not media coverage. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ×2 Where any living person unambiguously expresses a wish to be known by a certain name, and this expressed desire is verifiable in reliable sources (including in a reliable primary source) then our article title should match that desire, subject only to disambiguation and transliteration issues. Anything else is incompatible with WP:BLP. Where an expressed wish does not meet either criterion, we should wait until it is both verified and sufficiently unambiguous for our purposes. If relevant, we can report on what other sources, which do not necessarily have an equivalent to our BLP policies, choose to do. I don't know if this translates well to articles that are not about living people, so I offer no opinion about them at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What specific section of WP:BLP would anything else be incompatible with? --RA ( &#x270D; ) 01:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support option 3 - there is no need to change a system that clearly works for transgender people (and presumably including Manning, once the article is unprotected and people have a chance to fix it). It should also be noted that COMMONNAME is not, and never has been the overriding tool in title choice. It is one tool amongst many. This is exactly why we have naming conventions (formally or informally) for many sections of wikipedia, where using the "common name" is likely to create issues -- Nbound (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What percentage of our titles do you think are compatible with WP:COMMONNAME without regard to any other criteria? 98.7%?  98.8%?  or 98.9% or more?  --B2C 00:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Who knows? Even the numbers you have suggested (which could be and probably are quite wrong [it could be higher or lower] for all we know) would still leave tens of thousands of articles that dont follow it alone. I would of course contend that almost all articles are compatible with COMMONNAME, because it is one tool amongst many, and not the be all and end all or article naming. -- Nbound (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What I mean by "compatible with COMMONNAME" is the title is the name used most commonly in reliable sources to refer to the topic of the article (or that name disambiguated). You don't have to look at all titles to determine the percentage.  Just keep clicking on SPECIAL:RANDOM, ignoring titles of unnamed topics with descriptive titles, taking note of how many do and don't meet this criterion, until you have a statistically significant sample size.  Yes, there is a tiny percentage of articles, which amounts to a few hundred or maybe a few thousand, which are exceptions to this, but they are extremely rare indeed (go ahead, try to find one), and all have very good reasons to use some other name.  I see no reason for this article's topic to be one of those rare exceptions. --B2C 00:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As a roads editor, I know that both the US and Australian Roads projects have article naming conventions (WP:USSH and WP:AURDNAME), WP:USSH even being part of the result of an ArbCom decision, which suggest usage other than the common name (or a "specific" common name instead). The main issues for roads were ambiguity and plain incorrectness. These are not the only naming convetions by a long shot, and there are others which arent formalised (The main points of AURDNAME were only formalised very recently for example) -- Nbound (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will also point out that without an intimate knowledge on many topics, you may not know what is the official name, common name, legal name, and so on of these said topics either. Just because going through a tiny percentage of wikipedia articles (well, minuscule fractions of a percent), we cant find any that are obvious to a layperson, doesnt mean they dont exist, or arent even common. Games consoles like the original Nintendo Entertainment System, had different names depending on where you live. similarly sources will depend on where published. For these articles again, there are other considerations than basic common usage.-- Nbound (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its just occurred to me that all 3 options are very similar depending on interpretation of whats written. I infact agree with 2 and 1 aswell. If we need something at AT for transgendered people than so be it. Im not the only one who has had issues with interpreting this. This needs to be clarified, and a new discussion started. -- Nbound (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Insisting upon usage of a former name because the media clings to it is possibly a very offensive and hostile act. When a user at Wikipedia has their account renamed do we still go around openly referring to them by their former user name? No. Some people will know it. Others might learn it. But it is considered disrespectful to flaunt it. Why would we even entertain the idea of treating the subjects of articles worse than we expect of each other? Would that surely not violate the very spirit of the policy on the biographies of living people? When it is a member of a royal family their article changes the day their 'top title' changes and no consideration is given for how little coverage there is in the media about them by that title. American media still frequently refer to her as Kate Middleton but there doesn't seem to be a fight to move the article on her away from Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Insisting upon a certain amount of media coverage before an article on a transgender person is renamed while doing so instantly for royalty is basic discrimination. This is what redirects are for. Only at Wikipedia and only when the change of name involves a transgender person who has their own article is such fundamentally basic information as a person's name challenged with the aim to reject it as unencyclopædic. Creating an explicit policy/guideline/whatever that justifies discrimination is a dumb thing to do. Casey, you asked on the article talk page why use of a transgender person's birth name is "among the worst things to call a transgender person". Think for a moment simply of the person. Attach to that a great social stigma regarding the reason for the name change. Try to imagine how a name can be used as a very personal pejorative. It seems innocent but if you actually look at it what use of a birth name is doing is refusing to acknowledge the person they are actually speaking/writing about/to. It is conveying "you were and are and always will be regardless of everything else" and i/we don't accept/acknowledge this. There isn't the same social stigma attached to marriage but a woman might have similar feeling if you habitually refuse to acknowledge her marriage by insisting upon using her maiden name. The "my name is now Chelsea" letter is published on NBC's website, both in text and a photograph of the original. Do we really think we need or are owed a personal invitation to use her name in referring to her? I guess i fall somewhat near Option 2 except that i don't think accepting or rejecting any person's name based on what the editor of The New York Times likes is an acceptable thing in any way; it is just deferring blame to someone who didn't actually edit the article at Wikipedia. Media are very often against changes of name for private and public matters because it disassociates people with their past and requires re-connecting-the-dots to establish why this name is worthy of mass news coverage. Expect there to be for months or years to come sources which use the name Bradley because that is the famous name. This is what redirects are for. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 00:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have many good points, but you should be persuading the editors of the reliable sources whose (recent) adopted usage we follow, not the editors of WP. --B2C 03:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This goes beyond that, its a BLP issue as well. Imagine for a moment there was an article about you, most people get offended/annoyed when there are small innaccuracies (COI problems on these articles arent exactly rare). Now imagine if the article refered to you by the opposite gender than the one you identified with, most people would be annoyed or even angry with this. Wikipedia isnt a news agency, we dont need to keep around old usages to sell more copies. We can be very very accurate though, that is generally the point of Wikipedia, and indeed any encyclopedia. Right in the WP:BLP lead it states "We must get the article right." -- Nbound (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Options 1 and 3 (I see them as being the same)... It is important to realize that name changes are not unique to the transgender community...  lots of people change their names... hell even entire countries can change their names... and we deal with all name changes the same way:  With patience.  In any name change situation, there will be a period of time when the subject is still more recognizable under his/her/its old name.  Once a reasonable number of reliable sources start using the new name, and that new name becomes more recognizable, then we would change the title.  How long this takes depends on the individual subject/topic and source usage... It took years before we had enough sources to justify moving Bombay to Mumbai... with other name changes it took only a week or so. Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Option 3 This is obviously related to the Bradley Manning / Chelsea Manning debacle and so I think it needs to be considered after that requested move as the outcome of that will inform this discussion as to what community consensus actually is. I think a significant thing to remember is that article titles are the names we call articles by. The names of the subject of those articles (including the names we call the subject of those articles by) may be very different. The two are not the same thing. From that perspective, I don't see why articles on transgender people should be treated any differently. An article is an article is an article. The name we give to the article is not necessarily the name we call the subject of that article by. --RA ( &#x270D; ) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Option 2, also support Golbez's expansion: while transgender issues are currently a flashpoint for how COMMONNAME works, I've long been opposed to how COMMONNAME is used as a stick to beat others with. See, for example, Paul McCartney's Russian album, in which COMMONNAME ended up overruling common sense: while many sources used the formulation "Choba B CCCP", it was clear from other reliable sources given (and the album cover itself) that it was supposed to be "Снова в СССР" (tr: "Snova v SSSR"), which is Russian for "Back in the USSR".


 * With regards to transgender issues, as with all BLPs and to quote the policy, "we must get the article right". When a transgender person transitions, as I am doing, when we change our name it's an intention to leave the old name, which often does not match our gender, behind. To see it being used in a deliberate fashion, often against our express wishes, is incredibly insulting. I can't see how that would comport to BLP's requirement of ethical treatment at all.


 * The GLAAD media guidelines for transgender issues clearly state that we should use someone's chosen name in all cases. NHS guidance on trans care also state that "names and titles must be changed to reflect current gender status". I'd like to know why Wikipedia should travel a different route. Definitely, we should not rely on reliable sources to change themselves if we have a RS for trans status; as Lord Justice Leveson remarked:
 * "It is clear that there is a marked tendency in a section of the press to fail to treat members of the transgender and intersex communities with sufficient dignity and respect; and in instances where individuals are identified either expressly or by necessary implication perpetrate breaches of clause 12 of the [Press Complaints Commission Editor's Code of Practice]. Parts of the tabloid press continue to seek to ‘out’ transgender people notwithstanding its prohibition in the Editors’ Code. And parts of the tabloid press continue to refer to the transgender community in derogatory terms, holding transgender people up for ridicule, or denying the legitimacy of their condition."


 * In some ways, the attitude that keeps appearing with regard to trans people vs. COMMONNAME very often does the same thing Leveson criticised the press for. Sceptre (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles are given names that are convenient for readers to find. More often than not, that's the same name as the subject of an article. But it might not be. I think the primary mistake here (and on the Manning page) is conflating the title we give to an article with the name we call a subject by. We can start calling Manning, Chelsea right now, for example, but the page should only move when readers expect to find the article under the title "Chelsea Manning". We're not the NHS. We're not here to help Chelsea Manning transition from being a man to a woman. We can extend courtesy and respect to her choice, but the titles we give to our articles are named with respect and courtesy for our readers, not Manning. --RA ( &#x270D; ) 02:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Option 4 (an alternative proposal) - the 3 options as initially proposed do not properly frame the issues. Depending on how one reads Option 1 (and a little clarification from its proposer may be in order on this point), Option 1 and Option 3 are the same. Option 1 says that "recent coverage should be given more weight than older coverage in the case of titles of articles on transgender individuals. (Whether recent coverage should be given more weight for all articles on Wikipedia is another, broader topic)." Well, Wikipedia's policy on titles already requires that "if the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change," which is essentially the same as what Option 1 proposes, so Option 1 does not change existing policy. The problem with Option 2 is that it errs in the how it assigns relative degrees of reliability to sources. Option 2 treats media organizations, for example, as more reliable on the subject of an individual's name than the individual him- or herself. That is an understandable result of how Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources might be interpreted, since that policy emphasizes the importance of "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, to claim that a third party knows a competent adult's name better than the person him- or herself does is nonsensical. We need an Option 4, which would add a statement to the WP:TITLE policy explicitly clarifying that in cases of individuals announcing a name change related to a self-affirmed gender identity transition, the individual him- or herself is the most reliable source and the final arbiter on the subject of the person's name and gender identity. Article titles should consequently be based on the name the individual has announced for him- or herself. (The person's earlier name/s and gender transition would be discussed in the body of the article.) The existing redirect system would make it easy for readers to still be able to find articles even if they search for the past names of individuals who have changed their names as part of their gender transition. Dezastru (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Option 3 for now. In the middle of crisis is not a good time to work on a careful adjustment to policy.  And we should be careful.  Let's revisit this after the Manning thing settles out one way or another.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Option 2. This seems the most logical choice.  If someone no longer self-identifies as male, female, or robot, they shouldn't be referred to in that manner any more.  The same is true of anyone who changes their name.  We shouldn't have to wait for The New York Times to update their style guide before we can update ours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * option 3 + a section for TRANS people, describing that while we use pronouns that they have self-identified with, the title of the article is still based on WP:AT. Otherwise, I don't see a need to have a special accommodation for people who change gender w.r.t article titles - remember, the title of an article is NOT the person's name, it is the title of an article. The person's legal or preferred name can be (and often is) different than the title, which is chosen for the sake of the readers, not the subject. As such, the current language, which states that we prefer sources AFTER the name change is announced, should be sufficient. Also per Dicklyon, it may be worth shutting this discussion down for a week's time, awaiting the results of the Manning mess, then coming back here to finalize this discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Option 3 It seems wholly confusing to modify the policy midstream (as we all know which article this is about). And, more importantly, I remain unconvinced that there's something with transgender people that warrants a special case. Wikipedia is not here to promote or advocate for any cause. As everywhere else on Wikipedia, we are a reflection of society; we base our information on reliable sources, not on the desires and preferences of editors. It is not our fault if society, represented by reliable sources, does not heed a subject's name change, transgender or otherwise, and it is not our role to pioneer a trend. --  tariq abjotu  14:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Option 2 We are not talking about SEO optimization, we are talking about people. This is needed specially for cases when the person is still alive. This is consistent with MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP. "Confusion" is really an unimportant issue that is easily solvable, just use a redirect from old article name. Also note that these are cases in which media treatment is severely afflicted with systemic bias, so this exception is needed to avoid it. Vexorian (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Option 3 (no change) is best in the present editorial climate. Note that Option 1 is almost the same, and would be a better solution in practice provided we added some small guidance to the effect that public name changes by an individual do not cause an article to begin violating BLP or other core policies, and do not require blazing-speed out-of-process moves for the sake of avoiding such violations. So long as we recognize the legitimacy of debate over what name is actually used in recent sources, there is no practical issue. The ugly nonsense seen recently was caused by certain editors believing that exigent circumstances, such as the fleeting opportunity to demonize persons not the subject of an article, override not only consensus but every other consideration. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Option 2 If a person changes their name, transgender or not, we should respect that and change their article's name. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're aware that this would be a major and dramatic change, and would require moving dozens or even more articles possibly - all in contravention of COMMONNAME and recognizeability. Cat Stevens, Snoop Doog, etc...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cat Stevens is a very good example. In that case, the subject changed his name for an equally sensitive and passion-raising reason: religion. We respect their choice of name in the text but the article title is at the name readers are most familiar with regardless of the subject's preference for their own name. --RA ( &#x270D; ) 20:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Option 3 per the "present editorial climate" mentioned above. StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per the comments of 168.12.253.66. Edge3 (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Have relevant wikiprojects been contacted? (ie. LGBT/transgender related) - Failing to do so will cause all kinds of trouble if any changes get passed without input from interested groups. ArbCom - here we go!? -- Nbound (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the participants in the LGBT studies project seem to have created an essay on WP:GENDERIDENTITY today. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They need to be contacted in regards to any individual discussion thats likely to have any significant effect on their project - If it has not been done yet - I would suggest it is done before the this progresses much further. -- Nbound (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They have been at least partially contacted now. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We also need some discussion on how this will affect other transgender articles. -- Nbound (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that name change issues extend beyond transgender articles. For example, it is fairly common in the United States for a person converting to Islam to adopt a new name (see Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul Jabbar). This name change similarly reflects a rejection of their life prior to that conversion (Malcolm X described it as shedding his "slave name"). Where any such name changes occur, more recent sources should be given more weight in determining the proper article title. bd2412  T 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. But we follow usage in (recent) reliable sources, not the stated wishes of the individual. For example, we have Cat Stevens, not Yusuf Islam.  --B2C 03:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - giving more weight to more recent sources is still relying on the sources. bd2412  T 03:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: Is the issue of whether the article is a BlP at all relevant? Is this assumed to apply only to BLPs (e.g. respecting the subject's wishes)? Would BLP policy be mentioned? StAnselm (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Another suggested solution
First a quick recap of relevant policies and practices:
 * 1) Underlying issue is about 'any real name change', not gender. The broader issue is any name change at all, since article title usually only reflects gender as a result of the name. (Example - if someone called "Mark" in the news had asked to be known as "John" because "Mark" was their name while being abused as a child, and it is painful and would be preferred to leave behind, would we change the article title? Similar considerations apply)
 * 2) Usual default policy. Generally, in principle, we title articles, including biographies, after the topic's common or significant usage in sources (to summarize the general idea).
 * 3) Legal/'real' name is irrelevant here. We do not defer to "legal/real" names at all. (For example, DJs or similar may be titled "DJ Cool".) So "legal name" is not given deference just because it's the legal name. It might be used anyway but that's only since most of the time it is in fact the same as the common use name. So legal/real name is a red herring.
 * 4) BLP requires great deference to matters that can deeply impact a person, but we must still be neutral and accurate. In BLP terms, we show great deference to a person's choice of gender, of which their name is a core expression and often extremely important to them. However this is not a license to rewrite all matters at the whim of the subject.
 * 5) Genuine name change may not involve legal documentation. In a number of jurisdictions a person can change name by simple use or declaration. So no legal formality need exist. Some people have done this repeatedly or to make a point, sometimes using increasingly absurd names for fun. But some change names because of a real and significant sense it's crucial to them, and will feel hurt if others don't treat their choice seriously. So there will be times we want to respect it, but perhaps also times we don't.

Overall the missing criteria that seem to work here is '''whether there is good evidence that the intention to change [publicly used? most commonly used?] name is a genuine and enduring one, and appears likely to be non-temporary'''.

That would be enough to capture the cases we're missing. We can leave the rest for another day. FT2 (Talk 12:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has argued that BLP or any other policy is a license to "rewrite all matters at the whim of the subject." Rest assured that no one making a sincere announcement of a gender identity transition does so on a whim. And most who reach the point of making a public announcement of their transition will not subsequently return to their former identity. Which is why the issue of how to handle name changes for transgender people is NOT comparable to some of the other kinds of name changes that have been suggested in this discussion as being relevant. While there are reasons, for example, that Wikipedia should consider deferring to a performer's request that he or she be referred to by a particular name, performers are far more likely to announce changes of their names on a whim (eg, Sean Combs). The motivations behind many of these other kinds of name changes are very different and in many cases not likely to be as enduring as in the case of transgender transitions. Dezastru (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is not about motivation, nor questioning sincerity and significance. So saying it wouldn't be on a whim answers a point nobody's questioned. The issue here is Wikipedia article titling. If we added the above clause, then it would allow the genuine cases where it's a non-temporary sentiment that seems to be genuine and enduring to be recognized immediately within titles, without opening doors for transient, dubious, uncertain or possibly volatile name changes that we wouldn't want jumped on but would like to see more certainty first. FT2 (Talk 17:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Is WP:POVNAMING an issue here?
Just curious as to how (or if) people would apply WP:POVNAMING to the issue of transgender name changes. I read it as saying we should the follow the sources, even if they are seemingly biased. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I was unaware of that bit of policy, but was thinking of exactly the same issue. While I do not think there should be or needs to be a policy that specifically deals with the naming of articles for transgender people and that the current general policy on dealing with name changes (of both people and non-people) is sufficient, sometimes whether or not a name is the "common" one is a political matter. Is the country name "Burma" or "Myanmar"? Wikipedia says it's "Burma", but that is the "common" name because most countries refuse to accept "Myanmar" as a name for political reasons.


 * While this is a long time before Wikipedia was created, Muhammad Ali's name change was rejected by a lot of people in the media at first also for political (and racist and Islamophobic reasons), so had Wikipedia been around at the time the article would have remained with the title "Cassius Clay" for some time after he had changed his name. Wikipedia does have an article called "Star Wars Kid", which is about Ghyslain Raza, who made the infamous video of himself with a lightsaber. The experience of the video going viral was traumatic for him and being known as "Star Wars Kid" was not what he wanted, but the article does use that as it is the "common" name for him.


 * So for now I think that the policy should stay the same, but if any change is to be seriously considered it should not be a special caveat for transgender people. If considerations of bias in how things and people are named is going to be reconsidered with regard to article naming conventions, it should be a more general discussion. 99.192.67.148 (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we have to be cautious in using wikipedia, or our article titles, to try to be progressive. Ultimately, wikipedia should be a mirror of society. If society is rather crap on a particular point, then wikipedia should likely be the same - without purposefully offending of course. In the example of a trans name, suppose Joe comes out and says he now wants to be called Mary. If 99% of sources out there ignore his request, then we probably should too - even if it hurts Joe to the core. If we get into the business of trying to improve society, rather than document it, then we have strayed from our NPOV mission. In any case, we also should make clear that article titles are not the same thing as people's names.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Star Wars Kid is about the video, not about Mr. Raza. Powers T 13:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is about trying to improve society or advance a cause, it is about trying to determine good editorial policies. While we are a mirror of society in the sense that our factual content is necessarily limited to the factual content of our reliable sources, we set out own editorial policies. Those policies determine which other publications we consider to be reliable in the first place. (e.g. There is an overwhelming amount of tabloid trash available, which we most definitely do not mirror.) On this point, what do the most reliable sources suggest? I would consider the most reliable sources to be scientific and medical literature on transgender people, which support using the name that does not misgender the person.
 * To address the initial post in the section, I would say that yes, POVNAMING absolutely applies, either way you cut it. Either we respect express transgender identities, or we do not. It's a political decision either way; there is no purely neutral out for us. There is very strong support for respecting them in the scientific and medical communities, which is what determines the issue for me. On the other hand, there is very little support for respecting them in society at large.--Trystan (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure this is the case. We're seeing active debate within major media outlets right now - not all have come down on the same side, but the debate is there. I'm not suggesting we follow tabloids, I'm suggesting we do what we've always done, follow RS, even in the case of TG people. If, for whatever reason, RS don't follow, we shouldn't either, no matter what that person says. We ignore name changes all the time, we should be able to do so for TG people too, if sources point us that way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Part of this issue is not encyclopedic in nature. It has to do with respecting one's right to self identify, regardless of outside intervention. In some ways this may actually make it encyclopedic in nature, in that the subject themselves has made a public declaration. We live in a world where these issues are not cut and dry or black and white. Consensus should determine the outcome.-- Mark  21:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But consensus has already developed WP:AT here, with lots of thought and reasons behind it. One of the problems I see with the whole Manning discussion, and the discussion here, is that we are treating Wikipedia as if it were a news source - but we are tertiary, not secondary, so the considerations that NY Times might apply should not apply to us. There is a HUGE difference between "respecting one's right to self identify" and "decide the title of an article" - one is about how you relate to a person, the other is what you put in bold letters at the top of a page that covers that person. They are usually the same, but not always - and besides Cat Stevens, there are LOTs of other examples (such as Prince, etc) where a person's own self-identity does not align with the title of the article. Our goal is to provide the greatest utility for the greatest number, and that applies to article titles especially. If you say "it doesn't matter that much, you can have redirects", then that same argument can be turned against you. The reason COMMONNAME is powerful is because it is based fundamentally on the issue of what is best for the reader, while balancing with the needs of the subject (e.g. not choosing a name they find patently offensive).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Failing to change the article title to the transgender person's preferred name directly harms him or her by slowing the public's acceptance of the new identity. It also harms him or her by effectively declaring, in bold print at the top of the page (and in large bold letters in a prominent location on the first page for Google search results), that others know better what is best for him or her. What harm is done to the reader to redirect from his or her search term to an article with a title preferred by the transgender person? The opening sentence of the body of the article, if not the lede, will likely include a reference to their pre-transition name. The term the reader originally searched for will be honored, to the extent that it will lead the reader to an article on the subject of interest. So no harm at all is done to the reader when the article is titled according to the transgender subject's preferred name. In fact, if a reader searched for the pre-transition name, it's probably because the reader is unaware that the person has undergone a name change, or the reader cannot remember what the new name is. So putting the new name at the top of the page in bold letters helps educate the reader, which, after all, is our ultimatel goal. Dezastru (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please remember that Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... it is not Wikipedia's job to speed the public's acceptance of a new identity. Our job is to accurately reflect the public's acceptance (or lack of acceptance) of the new identity. If the public accepts the identity... wonderful... Wikipedia should and will reflect that acceptance by changing the title of our article.  But... if the public actually rejects the new identity, Wikipedia has to accurately reflect that rejection by keeping the title at the old (publicly preferred) name.  That's what occurred in the Cat Stevens case.   Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia's job to speed the public's acceptance of a new identity, true, but neither is it Wikipedia's job to stand in the way of the public's being informed of the change of identity, which is what occurs when Wikipedia holds media organizations as being more reliable on the subject of a person's name than the person him- or herself. Wikipedia's job is to provide readers with information while doing the least harm to subjects of BLPs as possible. Dezastru (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Lets wait on this
Right now the above section is a mess, it is clear that the people supporting the move from Chelsea to Bradley are choosing Suggestion 3 while the people who Oppose the move and want Chelsea as a name are choosing Option 2. We should wait until after this hype has died down to get more of a neutral consensus. Not only that but people are also coming here directly from the move discussion page as the two are linked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally agree... it is never a good idea to change policy when emotions are high over a specific issue. That's how you end up with unintended consequences that nobody thought about at the time. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, someone should close the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts
Hi everyone,

I noticed the discussion has been closed. I was away from Wikipedia for the weekend (everyone needs some time off) and didn't see most of what has been written. I do want to address some of the points that have come up and lay out what I feel about the future of this discussion.

First off, I want to thank the contributors for the thoughtful and varied responses. I've seen new interpretations of existing policy and new explanations of why transgender issues are so important. I was particularly struck by Deliriousandlost's notion that one's name is a deeply personal and important aspect of one's identity. One wishes to be referred to using one's preferred name and gender, and that's quite understandable.

Along those same lines, I'm conflicted about what role Wikipedia should play in transgender issues. It cuts both ways: we have a responsibility to report based on reliable sources, but also to be sensitive to biographies of living persons. The notion that we are beholden to the truth and to accuracy is quite admirable ("We can be very very accurate though" -- Nbound). I feel the same way in some sense. However, for better or for worse the reality is that we report what reliable sources report, even though they may be somewhat or wholly inaccurate. So, try as we may, we are not allowed under policy to correct what we may see as wrongdoings on the part of the media. This really gets to the fundamentals of what Wikipedia is: are we a force for social justice? I think the most common belief is that we are not. Whether we should make exceptions to that rule is a matter of debate, and was the focus of the discussion I created. I hope we can have further discussions, along the lines I laid out but also along different dimensions.

In terms of the options I presented, I appreciate the comments from several people that option 1 was in fact very similar to existing policy. I had not noticed that clause in the policy and it helps shed more light for me on how to proceed.

The policy itself is simply unsatisfactory. It does not provide the necessary clarity as to articles about transgender people. The fact that so many of us are debating what to call the Manning article makes it clear that the policy is not sufficient, and does not cover the topic sufficiently. I would support a portion of the page specifically dedicated to transgender individuals, as it would make absolutely clear what should be done in such cases, where sensitivities about one's name may be heightened. Spelling out the word "transgender" on the policy page would leave absolutely no doubts as to how to handle such cases. To assume that transgender individuals can be grouped with other cases (such as Snoop Dogg --> Snoop Lion) does not seem to be satisfactory to some editors. Providing crystal clear guidance could help.

I agree that we should suspend the debate for the time being; even my own views continue to evolve rapidly. However, I ask that we do not let this narrow window of opportunity pass us by. Interest and motivation in this topic is at, perhaps, a record high on Wikipedia. We have this rare chance to clarify the policy in a healthy and constructive way.

It would be incredibly disappointing to maintain the status quo on such a polarizing issue. Just imagine: we keep the policy the same, then next year when someone else reveals a name change, we have the same debate again. That would be terribly inefficient and would distract from both editing substantive encyclopedic content (such as the article text itself) and from educating ourselves about transgender topics.

I appreciate all the discussion and I very much hope the debate will continue and the community will reach an agreeable consensus. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Consistency detail
A pair of editors added "Unless a page has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation it should not be moved from one variety of English to a different kind in order to maintain consistency." to the one-sentence "definition" of consistency. I don't see discussion, nor do I see it as a paraphrase of comments elsewhere in this policy. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it needs to be stated in the "Deciding on an article title" section but this information can be found in the section on "National varieties of English". --GrandDrake (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think this should be part of the one sentence "definition" of consistency... It's perfectly OK to move an article title from one variety of English to another if there is consensus to do so... what we want to avoid is constant shifting back and forth (edit warring). To the extent that consistency is a factor in the move, that should be part of the discussion that is held while reaching (or not reaching) consensus. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm more troubled because it's ambiguous. What is the "consistency" that is being referenced?  Within the article?  Across articles?  both?  neither?  Bonus points if you can explain how, or if, this change would have affected the infamous RMs for the Yogurt article, and also the RM for the Strained Yoghurt article.   AgnosticAphid  talk 00:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I presume they derived it from WP:MOS. Seems sensible to me. If you can't keep changing the version of English within the article, then there should be a similar rule for renaming the article. Richard75 (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * But MOS does allow for changing the version of English within the article.... provided there is consensus to do so. I think it can be taken as granted that any discussion of change to the text would by default also include discussion of a change to the title, and vise versa. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In more detail; consistency is (and should be, contrary to B2C's statements) a factor in article naming; and WP:ENGVAR "informs" WP:COMMONNAME, but no one of the five factors is overriding. I don't think it is more necessary to note that consistency does not override WP:ENGVAR than any of the other factors.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Files and WP:AT
FYI, I have made a policy suggestion at WP:VPP concerning the need to be able to rename non-English/non-Latin file names to English, and to be able to apply NAMINGCRITERIA to filenames. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME
Recently I have noted that some editors evoke WP:COMMONNAME in move discussions to suggest that most common layman's usage (as determined through recognizability and usage in general public, ngram results, google hits, etc.) trumps the most common usage within the field of expertise that relates to the article topic (the sources that would be reliable for writing the article). This RfC asks you to provide your opinion and arguments about whether WP:COMMONNAME should be interpreted as an injunction to follow layman's usage if it conflicts with expert usage, and whether you think current policy should be clarified in this regard.

Survey:

 * 1) Comment I think this interpretation of policy is incorrect and problematic because it leads to situations in which a title can be divorced from the usage in reliable sources (e.g. all the reliable sources use one title, non-reliable sources and/or general usage uses another - so we adopt the latter in spite of all the reliable sources using the former). I think that this interpretation  conflicts with the passus in WP:COMMONNAME saying that "Though official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." I take this to mean that common name tells us to judge which title is more common through using the sources that are reliable for writing about the topic, not that we must blindly follow layman's usage. Even so, because of its apparent liability to this misunderstanding, I think we should amend policy to say clearly that assessments of what is the COMMONNAME should be based on the reliable sources for the topic, not on general usage frequency in the wider public. I don't consider this a change to policy, but a clarification of the originally intended policy. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Comment. I'm not sure a hard-and-fast rule here would be helpful or address any known problem. Sometimes we should eschew common usage which is inexact or too informal, even if it is the most common (e.g. "correction fluid" not "Tipex"). But neither is esoteric expertese desirable in titling (e.g. "orangutan" not "pongo"). Maybe the OP could provide examples of where they think problems can arise. Formerip (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It can arise for example in relation to names of historical persons or ethnic groups that were previously known by an incorrect, mangled or derogatory name but where historians or ethnologists have since adopted another convention - often the earlier name lives on in popular works and things named after the earlier name and will have higher frequencies of overall usage even when they no longer appear in recent literature about the subjects. I am of course coming from a specific discussion that I have in mind but I am not going to link to it because I want this to be a more general discussion of policy, not about that specific case.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither - WP:COMMONNAME is not about laymen vs specialists. When the policy uses the word "common" it is talking about frequency of usage, not the academic status of the person using it.  COMMONNAME calls for an examination of all reliable sources (specialist and lay).  We are looking to see the frequency of usage in reliable sources that discuss the topic, regardless of whether those sources are "lay" or "specialist".  If it is clear that one term is used significantly more frequently than other terms, we use that term in our articles.  We don't actually care whether that term comes from "laymen" or "specialists" (and it is important to note that sometimes the specialist term actually can be used more frequently... the prime example is in our flora articles... where layman's names for flowers is very localized, but the "scientific" name is universal).
 * Now, when usage is mixed, and a true COMMONNAME can not be determined, I would certainly give more weight to specialist's terms than to laymen's terms... and that weight might make a good tie breaker. But the point is that we don't give an automatic preference to either. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your notion that WP:COMMONNAME is about frequency - it is about frequency within the domain of relevant knowledge and it weighs frequency against a number of other concerns (I also disagree with the idea of reliable lay sources - at least in my field there is no such thing). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe newspapers, for example, would be reliable lay sources. It’s not uncommon for the reporter of a story to not be a highly educated expert on the subject of the story. —Frungi (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, true for some topics news could be considered a reliable source. Not for history topics though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither – while I agree that WP:COMMONNAME is widely abused and inappropriately "evoked", I don't think trying to make it more prescriptive will help. It is just one strategy in support of recognizability and naturalness.  Sometimes a layman's term is more natural or recognizable than a specialist's term, but we deal with those in a variety of ways in different domains, sometimes leaning one way or the other.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither – there is a need to clarify the way that WP:COMMONNAME should be used, but this isn't it. The subsection title is "Use commonly names". It expands on  of the five criteria, recognizability, to be balanced by editors in choosing an article title. The problem, as I see it, is that some editors interpret "COMMONNAME" as trumping the other four criteria, regardless of how they decide on what is "common". I agree with Dicklyon: trying to be more prescriptive isn't the answer. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... to quibble COMMONNAME isn't just a way to determine Recognizability... it helps to determine Naturalness as well (since the most Recognizable name is also likely to be considered the most natural). That's why it is such a good tool for determining the best article title, it hits what are usually considered the two most important of the five principles.  Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Usually considered" by whom? Not by me. The most important should be Precision. When editors choose common but ambiguous titles we end up with more and more article titles with parenthesised disambiguation, which helps no-one as far as I can see, and certainly doesn't lead to Naturalness. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither - COMMONNAME isnt a trump card, its to be weighed up against other options, and alot of other things come into play, such as: ambiguity, inaccuracy, non-neutrality, vulgarity or pedantry. This is exactly why we have numerous naming conventions for specific problem areas. I think we need to be much clearer about this aswell. -- Nbound (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another quibble... both this policy and the NPOV policy actually implies that COMMONNAME does "trump" non-neutrality concerns. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And if the common name is either incorrect or confusing - what then? Also NPOV doesnt imply any such thing, the common name isnt necessarily free from POV problems (it often is, which is why common name can help; but not always). -- Nbound (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me if you think that articles such as the Boston Massacre and the Patriot (American Revolution) should be moved because they are not neutral? The English Civil War was clearly a civil war in the way few are, so should the American Civil War be renamed War Between the States in the interests of NPOV as that is more accurate and less biased name than Civil War.-- PBS (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone actually calling either of those wars the things you said, probably not... if all sources are in agreeance to a name there, isnt any NPOV issue. if its a contentious issue, there may be a reason to choose a neutrally worded name. For example, some kind of issue between two religious groups, one side might refer to it by a negative name, one side might by a positive name, it may be best to choose a name from the middleground, as long as it is reasonably obviously referring to the thing in question. And as always, with any WP rule, use common sense! - furthermore there are other reasons (some listed above) why other names may be chosen over the "common name" -- Nbound (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I am a little surprised at the "neither" comments - given that I didn't phrase the question as either-or. I also didn't propose being prescriptive, merely clarifying the policy wording so that it becomes LESS prescriptive by clearly stating that COMMONNAME does not necessarily privilege overall frequency over frequency of use within the relevant domain of knowledge. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that COMMONNAME is:
 * One tool among many, and not always the best tool.
 * Best interpreted in reference to the frequency in high-quality and English-language reliable sources, not all sources or all webpages.
 * Not an excuse to choose inaccurate, imprecise, or confusing titles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither it has to be the most common usage in reliable sources. This does not mean that the sources are restricted to specialist publications, only that the source be reliable. WP:JARGON clearly indicates we should not be restricted to just specialist publications (such as publications not in English, which is being used to move articles around, because it is the "original language" source). -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That "it has to be" is the sort of problem I was referring to. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It all depends on the topic, how different usage is between specialized and non-specialized publications, precisely how specialized the publications are, etc. An article about some aspect of nuclear physics which is rarely covered in the popular media is quite different from an article about a well known historical event, for example. There is no substitute for editorial judgement; no "magic formula" which will avoid the need for discussion in problem cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:JARGON does not cover it as it is a MOS guideline and is neither part of the AT policy of its naming conventions (guidelines). It is covered in the AT policy by "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize" (my emphasis). -- PBS (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What does it mean to be familiar with? To me it means to have read reliable sources about the topic written by experts. Reading a book by an expert doesn't make you a specialist but it makes you familiar with specialist usage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Theres going to be examples where lay people with an interest will not recognise article titles, purely because a topic has been drilled down far enough that no lay person could be expected to know about it. Another possibility is that a lay persons concept or idea of something could be at best ambiguous; or at worst completely incorrect. As has been said by many here, these policies, especially common name, arent catchall rules, they are tools. Apply common sense and weigh up article names using any and all criteria available; including, but not limited to common name. -- Nbound (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been cited here. The citation appears to represent contributors here User:WhatamIdoing User:Dicklyon 76.65.128.222 User:Maunus User:FormerIP User:Nbound User:Blueboar User:Frungi as supporting that the basic-ASCII html version of an East European name is the WP:COMMONNAME for that person. For all I know it's quite possible that some of the editors in the discussion here do believe that the basic-ASCII html version of an East European name is the WP:COMMONNAME for that person, however I see it nowhere in the discussion here, and we just added François Mitterrand (which is unicode, not basic-ASCII) to WP:COMMONNAME partly to prevent exactly this kind of misunderstanding. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is pretty amazing how far PBS can twist a conversation and mention it for what it's not! Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, our Mitterrand example intentionally says nothing about the ASCII vs Unicode issue... The example given is "François Mitterrand (not: François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand)"... it is an example of where a person's first and last names are commonly used, but the full name (with middle names included) is not. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, no it doesn't, but as I said it was added partly to prevent exactly this kind of misunderstanding. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember the discussion... you may have had that intent in mind, but I am not sure the rest of us had the same intent. (I know I didn't). Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was clear you didn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if the two people who were primarily involved in adding the Mitterand example were/are not in agreement as to its intent... is there any wonder that that others disagree as to its intent? Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep the recommendation that it be based on usage by Reliable Sources (which can include popular sources such as newspapers). To base it on general lay usage (however measured - Google hits, ngrams, polls, etc.) rather than Reliable Sources would degrade the encyclopedia. You would wind up with articles titled "Princess Di" and "A-Rod". You might as well base the encyclopedia on a Family Feud model, where the winning answer was based on "Survey says...." even if it was factually incorrect. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Sometimes a common term refers to a specific condition (common cold equals viral rhinopharyngitis) and when it does we should use the common term. Sometimes the common term equals many condition (heart attack could mean either cardiac arrest or myocardial infarction, different condition need different articles). We need to use common sense. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While absolutely agreeing that we need to use common sense (which, as per the cliché, is not always common), we also need to keep remembering that WP:COMMONNAME is just an expansion of of the  criteria used in deciding on an article title. "Precision" applies in the frequent cases where a single common term corresponds to more than one article topic. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose change The current ambiguous policy is better than any alternative proposed. I agree that the current policy causes problems.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being a bit late to this party! With respect to the exact way in which you phrased your question, I think that in the unlikely event the name used in  lay sources is hopelessly in conflict with the name used in reliable expert sources, I do indeed think that the lay sources should triumph.  The reason why is pretty well stated in this this essay that another editor wrote perhaps a little to stridently on perhaps a slightly different topic.  Basically, wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, not a specialist source for experts, so why should we follow the generalists when there's a conflict.  For instance, as the person said above, and assuming these two things are the same, the article should be named orangutan and not pongo even if biologists exclusively use pongo in their literature.  Our readers aren't likely to be expert biologists.  (I don't know anything about orangutans or pongos (?) so I'm sorry if this is a terrible example.)  Nor should we be running around using super-obscure medical and legal names .  I am not sure given the way this discussion is phrased that you adequately considered the possibility of  non-expert sources.  With regard to the latter question, I'm not familiar enough with COMMONNAME disputes to know whether it needs to be clarified. Sorry.   AgnosticAphid  talk 06:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support clarification as suggested by User:Maunus. Wikipedia should reflect the recent expert knowledge, not layman names. I think that follows from what sources are considered reliable. --Space simian (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC). As an example: alcohol should refer to the article about alcohols and not ethanol; i.e. it should reflect usage by reliable expert (chemist) sources. (And regarding orangutans, I suspect experts refer to them as orangutans for the most part as well.) --Space simian (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sponsors and "naming rights"
It is common, particularly for sports stadiums and similar buildings, for sponsors to have temporary naming rights to a building. This means the official name for a building may change frequently. Sometimes the common name reflects these changes, and sometimes it doesn't. Generally the Wikipedia convention is to stick to the more generic name for the article, even if the sponsored official name becomes fairly common. However that practice isn't currently reflected in this policy, or as a separate written convention. Should it be?

Examples include: Counterexamples include:
 * Rose Bowl (cricket ground) - formally "(The) Ageas Bowl"
 * City of Manchester Stadium - formally "(The) Etihad Stadium"
 * The Oval - formally "(The) Kia Oval"
 * Emirates Stadium - generic name is "Ashburton Grove (Stadium)" but it was named the Emirates before building was completed and has never had an alternative official name

 W a g g e r s  TALK  08:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure that it is accurate to say there is "Wikipedia convention" to stick to the old name... It really is more a question of WP:COMMONNAME (do sources start using the new "sponsor" name, or do they reject it and continue to use the old name).
 * I note that all your examples are UK based. It may be that UK sources are more resistant to change than American sources ... We change article titles on US stadiums and ball parks quite frequelntly... examples are: Enron Field to Minute Maid Park... Pacific Bell Park to SBC Park to AT&T Park...  Jacobs Field to Progressive Field... etc.  All were justified because the new name quickly became the WP:COMMONNAME used in sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * International organisations that take over a city or a country for a jamboree throw up some interesting naming problems. For example they will inst that a venue does not include a commercial name that has not paid them to use the name, so the Aviva Stadium (which IMHO ought to be called by its old stadium name Landsdown Road) was called the "Dublin Arena" for the 2011 UEFA Europa League Final, and more recently The O2 Arena was called the "North Greenwich Arena" for the 2012 Summer Olympics.
 * As an example consider when the Welsh Rugby Union renamed Cardiff Arms Park the National Stadium everyone including commentators in reliable sources ignored them and continued to call it the Arms Park. But when the old stadium was knocked down and a new one was built the WRU christened it the Millennium Stadium and that name stuck. So I think COMMONNAME covers this issue of naming stadiums and there is no need for a specific paragraph, although I think it might be a good idea to add "third party" before "reliable sources" in the phrase "then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change" to cover purely commercial changes of name, (this is something which I had already considered proposing over the discussion above about . -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is the province of COMMONNAME, with the Etihad forming part of the borderline (as that name has easily entered into the footballing lexicon, but not fully). Sceptre (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A similar problem has come up with shopping centres. Various companies will buy out the complexes and slap a uniform corporate branding upon them. However locals frequently carry on using the existing name, which is often restored after the next buyout, but the web searches can be dominated by chains using the new name in postal addresses on their branch list rather than by the usage in the local press and various local organisations. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving "naming conventions" pages to "article titles"
I find the current bifurcation between "Article titles" and "Naming conventions" considerably confusing. The existing names for those pages are inconsistent with this policy (WP:AT). As WP:AT states, names for articles should be consistent; similarly, the names for policy pages should be consistent.

"Naming conventions" is also vague -- despite editing Wikipedia for 7 or so years, I couldn't definitively tell you what a "naming convention" is. Naming of what? Naming of people? Of articles? Official names? Legal names? Preferred names?

I propose we move all the subject-specific naming conventions, such as Naming conventions (geographic names), to fall in line with the new title, as in Article titles (geographic names). This would bring all naming / titling policies in line with one another, and would extricate us from the tricky business of declaring which name is the "real" name.

Looking back at this page's move request, I thought there might have been some sort of deep reason for keeping the specific pages at the old name. Yet, as far as I can tell, it was simply a matter of convenience, per these quotes:

Requested moves remain open for seven days. I am willing to close the request and carry out any necessary moves. Are you also proposing renaming all specific naming conventions? If so, please place a notice on the talk pages of all those. Ucucha 7:52 am, 2 February 2010, Tuesday (3 years, 7 months, 3 days ago) (UTC−8)
 * No, just this one, at least for now. If other pages want to change their titles, that can be done at a later date (IMO, ideally after people have had some time to get used to this change).

We've had a confusing bifurcation for over three years now. I think we should correct it. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions apply not only to titles, but to usage within articles. In many cases, the naming conventions are used for things which themselves never will have an article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur. There is a discussion right now at WP:MOSLAW about naming conventions for case names, whether in titles or not, that should really stay at that location (though of course anyone is welcome to comment).  It doesn't really affect Manning or any transgender issues, but it is standardization that is helpful.  Maybe those sections could be transcluded to WP:AT?   GregJackP   Boomer!   23:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the "naming conventions" are about more than article titles, why does the template on the upper right corner of WP:AT state, "Topic-specific conventions on article titles"? CaseyPenk (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because they *do* often apply to article titles, but they also apply to more than that. WP:AT used to be called WP:Naming Conventions I think, it was moved a while back. Anyway, Casey, don't open up a new front when you're fighting a complex battle. Whatever confusion you might have on this point, I'd suggest waiting until the fire dies down. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is OK to have separate topic specific naming conventions... the key is to make sure they conform to the basic concepts set out at WP:AT and don't conflict (or if they must conflict for some reason... that the conflict is highlighted and fully explained). Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning their existence. I'm questioning their naming, which is inconsistent with that of WP:AT. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The royal one is an example where perhaps the naming conventions conflict with COMMONNAME, but we have a lot of royal-lovers here, so it would be hard to overturn that one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to contribute in some way as I can. The proposal above might need a major shift. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, you started the fire :) Changing commonname is not for the faint of heart, especially in the middle of an epic wiki-battle. Commonname is one of the most sacred policies on the wiki, and is cited by thousands upon thousands of move requests. The changes proposed above - even the light-weight ones - could cause a drastic shift - so if you want to make a change here, you need to be ready for large RFCs and the long haul. I think Bd2421 was being a bit optimistic when he proposed that we could quickly push through a change here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone could have told me the change would be futile, would have spared the hard feelings. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Difficult != futile young grasshopper! I think there is rough consensus that SOMETHING needs to change. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take that as encouragement, or something. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Tag "WP:COMMONNAMES" as disputed or under discussion?
We are having amendment proposals right now. And people should be aware of them. --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a tag that stresses the "under discussion" part and down plays the "disputed" part? COMMONNAME continues to be strongly supported, what we are discussing is the language and how to apply it in certain circumstances. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * under discussion; under discussion-inline; disputedtag. --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I added under discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous or inaccurate names

 * See Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 37

I reverted an edit by Blueboar made at 02:06, 6 September 2013. As was discussed previously this sentence is that to cover cases were we have reliable sources saying that a particular name is inappropriate for the subject of the article even if a survey of reliable sources indicate it is a commonly used name. It does not mean that an editorial consensus will necessarily agree with the expert opinion expressed in the reliable source, but such sources should be weighed when discussing what is the appropriate title. -- PBS (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is an issue for the text of the article, not the title. As far as the title is concerned... If a significant majority of reliable sources use X, then it would be non-neutral for Wikipedia to decide that all these sources are in some way "wrong".
 * That said... I totally agree that we should take quality of sources into account when determining whether a majority is "significant" or not. However... we should not give UNDUE weight to one or two "experts" who say X is correct over a significant majority (that may well include other experts) that prefer Y. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The older example give was tsunami in place of tidal wave, because what are now commonly labelled tsunami were until a few years ago commonly called tidal waves although they are not. Looking at the recent discussions chokladboll/negerboll might fall under that category -- not sure it would take some investigation. -- PBS (talk)
 * But this is an example of how source usage can change... these events used to be commonly called "title waves"... but in recent years usage (especially usage in higher quality sources) has changed, and the events are now routinely called "tsunamis". I don't know if the "tsunami" usage has reached the level of "majority", but enough sources now use "tsunami" that we can say that "tidal wave" is no longer the COMMONNAME.  That open the door to discussing options.
 * Until recently, I would have argued that the article should stay at Tidal wave... as that was far more recognizable to English speakers... and the place to note that the term "Tidal wave" is inaccurate would have been in the text of the article. Now, however, I would strongly argue for Tsunami... because usage in sources has changed (we would still note that these events used to be called "Tidal waves" in the text... with some explanation of why that term is inaccurate and how usage is changing because of that inaccuracy).
 * As to the larger point... My counter example is Boston Massacre. Almost any historian worth his/her salt will tell you that this name is highly inaccurate... what occurred in Boston on March 5, 1770 was hardly a "massacre".  Yet despite the inaccuracy of the name, the event continues to be routinely and overwhelmingly called the "Boston Massacre", even by "experts" that note how inaccurate the name is.  So... Wikipedia continues to use that name as our article title.  More to the point... we should continue to use that name until source usage changes. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Recognizability – although not necessarily an expert in
There has recently been a discussion on the talk page of the United Kingdom in a called Why would someone be looking for the Great Britain article? which revolves around whether a non-resident ought be aware that England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom are not synonyms for the same thing. This is a slightly different nuance on the usual take of what is the meaning of "someone familiar with" from that which is usually put forward on this talk page. -- PBS (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * However, if you look at the discussion it's not about article titles but about how to handle disambiguation via hatnotes and dab pages. So I don't think that it has anything to do with WP:AT's recognizability. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

“Conciseness” wording
Four months ago, on 7 April, User:Finell, including the following change:

As best I can tell, this wording has been stable through the four months since then. Hours ago, someone replaced part of the new text with the old, so it read (with the changes underlined):

"Conciseness – The title is concise, not overly long, but long enough to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.</ul>"

Another editor reverted that change, a third editor reverted the revert, and then there were two subsequent reverts citing WP:BRD…

In the interest of sanity, I’ve reverted it to the wording that’s been stable for the last four months, and I’m opening this discussion about changing it from that. Personally, I prefer Finell’s version over the most recent change. It’s more concise, for one thing. —Frungi (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The "to" text above ignores the definition of the word "concise", which does not mean "as short as possible". A concise title is both short and comprehensive; it is brief yet still conveys useful information. Some editors prefer to see the shortest possible title as the most concise title, which just isn't what the word means. Omnedon (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's worth talking about. When I boldly made today's change, it was to undo what may have been an inadvertant change of emphasis.  In this edit of last April by User:Finell, with edit summary Recast characteristics as singular in active voice, use terminology consistent with rest of page, the wording was changed as indicated above.   So I fixed the old concept to a singular version, incorporating Finell's extra info.   What I left out, which is what User:Born2cycle is bothered about, was "no longer than necessary".  He always seeks rules that push editors into corners of zero freedom, to make the titling process more algorithmic.  He has done this to precision, and now he is trying to do the same for conciseness.  It is not necessary to be that restrictive.  Editors can consider what "not overly long" means, as we had in there for years.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In reply to both: “concise (adjective): giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.” To me, “no longer than necessary to …” matches this definition better than “not overly long, but long enough to …”. And with that, I think that’s about all I have to say on the matter; I have no opinion re its restrictiveness. —Frungi (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that "no longer than necessary" is a novel change that snuck in under a misleading edit summary. The previous concept goes way back; in 2009 it was simply "Concise – Good article titles are short; this makes editing, typing, and searching for articles easier."  It morphed around over the years, but never before "as concise as possible", which is too restrictive.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we do end up going with your version, might I suggest tweaking the grammar? “The title is concise: not overly long, but …,” since the text following “concise” seems to be clarifying what is meant by the word. —Frungi (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, my comma splice was not ideal. But you get the point.  I'm flexible. Perhaps this:  Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"<ul><li>Conciseness – The title is not overly long, but long enough to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.</li></ul>"


 * Definitely better, less redundant, but I honestly have no preference between this and “no longer than necessary”. —Frungi (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Aside from other considerations, "overly long" would be better as "over-long"; but either way, the original seems to be tautological. Tony   (talk)  04:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which version are you referring to as "the original"? And is tautological good, or bad, in saying what "concise" means?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the point of having "concise" on this list of preferred attributes at all must be that if two possible article titles are equal in terms of other aspects, then the shorter title is better. For example, New York City and New York, New York probably fare equally well as natural, recognizable common names for the city, and are equally precise. However, the article is at the shorter title, New York City, because nothing longer is required to fully identify the subject. In any case, I think that we should have some examples like this showing that, where all else is equal between two possible titles, conciseness is a tiebreaker favoring the shorter title. bd2412  T 12:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not necessarily the case; "concise" doesn't equate to "shortest". Omnedon (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that to a degree - after all, editors would just as easily recognize Lord of the Rings as opposed to The Lord of the Rings, but we use the full title, and we don't substitute "&" for "and" in titles even though it would make them shorter. On the other hand, we don't use titles like The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, even though that would be accurate and perhaps more informative, because the additional information is unnecessary to get the reader to the article. I like the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of "concise" for this purpose: "marked by brevity of expression or statement: free from all elaboration and superfluous detail". Frankly, I think it is better than our own Wiktionary entry: "brief, yet including all important information". Nevertheless, I think that if we are going to say that titles should be "concise" at all, we should have some explanation, including some examples, expanding on what conciseness means in terms of picking the best title. Once we have that explanation, we can adjust the short version as needed (if needed at all) to better match the broader explanation. bd2412  T 14:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are others: from oxforddictionaries.com, "giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive". from dictionary.com, "expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse". From thefreedictionary.com "expressing much in few words; brief and to the point". The overriding theme here is the idea of balancing brevity with comprehensiveness. An example came up earlier this year regarding naming conventions for geographic names; it involved the city of McLouth, Kansas. The title "McLouth" would, of course, be shorter; but "McLouth, Kansas" is both longer (though not very long) and more concise. Omnedon (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Let's write it that way and put it in a section on this policy page. To paraphrase what you have written, The overriding theme of conciseness is the balancing of brevity with comprehensiveness. An example arising from the naming conventions for geographic names is the city of McLouth, Kansas. The title "McLouth" would, of course, be shorter; but "McLouth, Kansas" is both longer (though not very long) and more concise. I still think, however, that my examples of choosing New York City over New York, New York, and The Lord of the Rings over The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, are also valid examples of conciseness, and that there is something to be said for choosing the shortest title from a set of equally common and equally informative options. bd2412  T 16:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hang on. If "McLouth, Kansas" is more concise than McLouth, then "San Francisco, California" is more "concise" than "San Francisco".  Is that your opinion? I don't agree that "the overriding theme of conciseness is the balancing of brevity with comprehensiveness".  Comprehensiveness is not a criterion at all.  --B2C 16:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To put it concisely: “Concise” does not mean short. It means short and informative. —Frungi (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Omnedon (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * B2C, it's the overriding theme in the definition of concise.
 * BD2412, I agree that if there are multiple options that are equally informative, then in general shorter is better. It's just that in some cases, the shortest possible title is not very informative at all. I entirely agree with your LOTR example; adding "by J.R.R. Tolkien" begins to move away from conciseness. Omnedon (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * B2C, I agree with Omnedon that "McLouth, Kansas" is a more concise title because even though it is the primary topic of "McLouth" (as evidenced by "McLouth" redirecting there), it is still a small and obscure place for which the average reader would have no frame of reference at all without "Kansas" being included in the title. Therefore, McLouth, Kansas is the shortest title to give the reader a comprehensive sense of what an article with that title will be about. Most of the tens of thousands of small towns in the world, even if they are unique names, require such a geographic indicator. Most of the handful of "world cities" (San Francisco, Paris, Hong Kong, Nairobi) do not, because the average reader already has a sense of where they are from hearing that much of the name alone. New York City stands outside of this paradigm only because the primary topic of the term, New York, is the state that encompasses the city, but "New York City" is still identification enough without saying New York, New York (or even New York City, New York). bd2412  T 17:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * bd2412, I agree with what you've said. To take a higher-level view of article titles, there are broad categories of articles to which special considerations may apply -- such as populated places, among others. For that reason I disagree with the idea of stating in policy that the shortest name is always best or most preferable, or that the shortest name is always the most concise. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it is not, and we need some flexibility. There may be an argument that says, "Then why not 'McLouth, Kansas, USA', or 'McLouth, a city in the state of Kansas in the United States'?" As you rightly said, "McLouth, Kansas" is the shortest title that conveys something about the subject of the article. It strikes the balance that is called for by the goal of conciseness. One can go too far either way. Omnedon (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with BD2412 and Omnedon. Conciseness does not equate to brevity. I'm not sure New York City is a particularly good example of conciseness though. I would rate it a wash on conciseness or perhaps a slight edge to NYC. I think NYC is preferable more so on naturalness and common usage than on conciseness in that "NY, NY" is really only commonly used in a) postal-form references, b) presentations in which NY, NY is used to be consistent with other cities, and c) some occasional pop culture references alluding to the song popularized by Sinatra. older ≠ wiser 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think those involved in this discussion would benefit from considering some of the points previously raised about this issue. The (short) names of legislation is an interesting area to discuss because the names are already unique within a jurisdiction, so the only reason to add to them is for disambiguation unless one considers the short names given to legislation are too short (this is discussed in detail in the archive section Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 33) -- PBS (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The conversation continued in the next archive see Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 34 and the next Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 34 -- PBS (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've read the linked sections, and seem to disagree generally with you preferences, and strongly disagree with rationales offered by some who agree with you (you yourself provide few words of rationalisation). I find I agree with basically every word offered by Tony.


 * Arguments against helpful titles include "Bottomless quagmires of dispute", "Slippery slopes" and other logical fallacies. Is there a history of reader-helpful titles causing readership problems? Policy shouldn't be written to serve editors over readers.


 * If most readers cannot reasonably make an educated guess as to the subject of an article from its title, then it needs more information in the title.


 * Title bloat? Is there evidence?  What does the real world do?  I think I read in some archive a driving reason for super incision being that it is easier to type short titles. Well, that's an editor concern, not a reader concern, and should be dismissed as such. Superconcise titles make great redirects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that to a degree articles are titled for people who already know enough about the topic to be looking for it. From B2C's list below, for example, I've never heard of Tuulepealne maa, and because I've never heard of it, I would have no reason to search for it. A qualifier like (TV series) or (Estonia) or (Estonian TV series) would not be useful because for me to go looking for that title at all, I would basically have to know what it was already (although, yes, all of those titles could be made into redirects, which would not hurt anything, and theoretically might possibly help someone, sometime). We might say, then, that the best title is the most succinct title to completely identify the topic as it is likely to be known to the average person searching for that topic. bd2412  T 00:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One way to look at this is, what is wrong with a clear, accurate and precise title? Especially one that is unambiguous and is likely to not need moving in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, you say: "If most readers cannot reasonably make an educated guess as to the subject of an article from its title, then it needs more information in the title." If we apply that to the list below of random titles, 9 out of 10 "needs more information in the title", since most cannot make an educated guess as to the subject of the respective article from those titles.  Even if you exclude the four that are apparently about people (if "about a person" is a close enough guess about the subject of the article), we're still talking about a majority.  Not only that, but for most of these there is no obvious "more informative" title, so we can expect endless debate about each.  And, apply that to 50-95% of all of our titles, depending on how you define a good enough educated guess.  No matter how you slice it; totally unworkable.  Titles were NEVER meant to convey the subject of an article to someone who is unfamiliar with that title/subject.  This scope limit has always been made clear at recognizability.    --B2C 03:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BD, I think this is pretty good: " the best title is the most succinct title to completely identify the topic as it is likely to be known to the average person searching for that topic.", though I would strike "completely".
 * Vegas, what is wrong with "a clear, accurate and precise title" is that Tuulepealne maa, for example, may be "clear" to some but is not to most. So how do we decide what is "clear"?  --B2C 03:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A random sampling
Okay, let's dispense with the strawmen arguments: Nobody is saying that conciseness means shorter is always better. We all agree Yogurt is better than Yogur, even though Yogur is shorter.

Now here is something we all agree about: Concise means short and informative. But informative about what, exactly? Let's look at ten actual random titles to get an idea of what "informative" might mean with respect to WP titles:


 * Tuulepealne maa
 * Kevin Chapman
 * Honey and Dust
 * Priyanka Vadra
 * China Banking Regulatory Commission
 * Bert Marshall
 * Mount Shadow
 * Marcus Griffin
 * Siribala
 * Massingir District

Whenever I grab a random sampling of our titles, it's quite clear that with respect to topics that have names, we try to make our titles "informative" in only one respect: to inform the reader what the name of the topic is. We don't try to inform our readers, in the article title, that Tuulepealne maa is an Estonian TV series, that Kevin Chapman is an actor, or that Honey and Dust is a book.

Now, let's look again at the cherry-picked (not random) example of McLouth, Kansas. It (and other US cities) is an aberration/exception compared to regular practice. We don't try to inform our readers, via the article title, that Mount Shadow is a small peak in New Zealand. Why is there a need to inform our readers, in its title, that the town named McClouth is in Kansas?

Right now it's generally clear that, with a few exceptions (most notably US cities), when a topic has a name that does not require disambiguation, we use that name as the article's concise title, and such a title is as informative as it needs to be. If we wish to make our titles more informative, so that they become recognizable to even people who are not familiar with their respective topics, that opens up an enormous can of worms. Suddenly at least nine of the ten titles in the random list above, currently stable, become open to change.

Putting aside a few exceptions like US cities, there is very little precedent in policy or especially in practice for making our titles "comprehensive" or "informative" (beyond informing readers what the name of the topic is), except when disambiguation or a contrived/descriptive title is necessary. We should not state or imply otherwise. --B2C 20:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No strawman arguments were presented, and my single example was not cherry-picked; rather, it was an example that has been discussed before. And yes, you have suggested that this interpretation of "concise" was wrong, and you have tended to equate "concise" with "short", insisting that Wikipedia has its own definition of "concise" (which, if true, should not be true). A concise title is not always the shortest possible title, and an example has been given, representative of tens of thousands of similar articles. I am not suggesting that titles be comprehensive; that the definition of the word "concise" can include the word "comprehensive" doesn't mean that the latter term suddenly becomes a criterion of its own. But titles certainly should be informative to at least a minimal degree. What is this article about? Almost no one looking at the title "McLouth" would assume it was a city; it might be any number of things. Add the state and it is immediately much more clear to a large number of readers. No more is needed; but no less is sufficient. In other areas of Wikipedia, such as articles about people, the situation is different. Hence the need for flexibility in titling. Omnedon (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking just at that group, Tuulepealne maa and Honey and Dust are titles of works, and are unambiguous; Kevin Chapman, Priyanka Vadra, Bert Marshall, and Marcus Griffin are human names, with the first and third being primary topics for ambiguous names; China Banking Regulatory Commission is self-explanatory; * Mount Shadow and Massingir District are obvious place names for a mountain and a district. Without a state identifier, McLouth is not obviously a place name rather than a surname (it is apparently named for an "A. McLouth", who once owned the land). The only one of these that gives me pause is Siribala, which could helpfully be renamed Siribala, Mali. bd2412  T 20:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should value "helpful to our readers" above "need to inform our readers". "Need" is very extreme a requirement, and its thrown around with little definition. Titles are important because they are the main information available before loading a page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BD, yes, Tuulepealne maa and Honey and Dust are titles of works, but you can't know that from looking at the titles. For example, Honey and Dust could be a band name, or the name of a notable boat.  We are not informed from the title about what it is, nor should we be. More to the point, conciseness should not imply that these titles need to have additional information in them in order to be "informative". Yes, Kevin Chapman, Priyanka Vadra, Bert Marshall, and Marcus Griffin are all obviously human names, but that's by happenstance.  Is Astrid Lampe a human, a place, title of a work, or what?  Do you know without looking?  I, for one, had never heard of any these people.  If the article title is  to inform readers that McLouth is a city in Kansas, shouldn't article titles also inform readers that Chapman is an actor, Vadra a pol, Marshall a hockey player, Griffin an American football player and Lampe a poet?  I don't understand how you're defining "informative"... informative about what, exactly? Moving on to China Banking Regulatory Commission - yes, self-explanatory.  It's the only informative one in the list, by my reckoning. Sure,Mount Shadow is probably a mountain, but not for sure!  Consider Mount of Olives,  Temple Mount, Anson Mount, Mount Florida and Mount Isa?  Can you tell which of these are mountains, just from the titles?  Similarly, Massingir District is probably a place name, but we are not informed where it is from the title. Now, consider the countless cities all over the world that are not obviously cities from the titles of their articles, like Ceri, Haringsee and Casape.  Why is it so important to make an exception out of US cities like McLouth?  But I don't really want to get into debating the merits of adding state names to US city names here - my point is that practice is an exception; it is not a standard practice for article titles, not even for city article titles, and we should not state or imply otherwise.   The reason we specify state in the titles of US cities is not to be informative, but because McLouth, Kansas can be seen as the full name of that place. You want to move Siribala to Siribala, Mali? Then why not Ceri → Ceri, Lazio, Haringsee → Haringsee, Gänserndorf and Casape  → Casape, Latium?  There is no consensus for such moves in the community, and we have no basis to say anything in policy that says or implies otherwise. To reword conciseness in a way that says, suggests or implies that WP titles are supposed to be informative (or, God forbid, comprehensive), opens the door for proposing the moves of the majority of our articles.  Maybe that's exactly what some people want, but I don't see consensus for that.   --B2C 23:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, what does "helpful to our readers" mean in terms of how it affects our title choices? Look at my random list.  Nine out of ten could easily be seen as currently unhelpful.  If that's a representative sample, we're talking about 90% of our titles.  Are you in favor of changing almost all our titles in order to make them more "helpful to our readers"?  Not to mention that opening them for rename means opening the door for deciding on what exactly the "helpful" title should be.  --B2C 23:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Most titles are fine. Many could be more helpful, and changing them is best done on a case by case basis on individual merits. Obscure small towns would be helpfully disambiguated by location, even if their indigenous name is technically unambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On what grounds do you say that "most titles are fine"? I mean, I agree, but I also don't think we should be changing titles in order to make them "more helpful".  If I believed we should be changing titles in order to make them "more helpful", then I would have to say that most titles are not fine. And what do you mean by a "case by case basis on individual merits"?  What are the "individual merits" of McLouth that justify putting it at McLouth, Kansas that do not exist for, say,  the 500 or so Cities and towns in Lower Austria that do not require disambiguation?  Or are you favoring that they all be moved?    --B2C 00:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When I read articles for pleasure or work, I rarely encounter obviously unhelpful titles, queen consorts being a major exception. The Random article link rarely gives me an obviously unhelpful title. Policy should freely allow for helpfully amending by location the titles towns of lower Austria, but only if editors genuinely interested in the towns do the renaming. I do not support WP:at title experts performing mass bot-like edits/moves as they may be unaware of a particular ancient town having great sensitivity about being labelled Austrian. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:USPLACE has us use state names in almost all US place names for reasons other than conciseness, but that aside: The way I see it, “McLouth” sounds like a surname. It sounds like something that is not the subject of its article, so the qualifier is warranted. “Tuulepealne maa” and “Honey and Dust” could be anything and don’t sound like anything in particular, so there’s no conflict with expectation; that is, one wouldn’t likely search for those names expecting to find something else. —Frungi (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, I cannot understand what you're saying because you keep using terms like fine, helpful and obviously unhelpful without defining what that means to you in a way that I would know how they would apply to various titles. I know the dictionary definitions, of course, but I don't know why you would think (if you do) that McLouth is unhelpful (or even "obviously unhelpful"), but Simuna and Salorno, are, perhaps, among the "most titles" which are "fine".  What criteria do you use to decide if a given title is "fine", "helpful", "unhelpful" or "obviously unhelpful"?  In the random list, how would you classify each in these terms, and why?
 * You, or any random person here, is likely in a very poor position to decide what is the best title for a topic, with regards to helpfulness. Helpfulness is a quality with meaning to people associated with or interest in the topic.  "Fine", as I used it, means it seems OK to me, I have no particular problem, however I am not expressing a deeply considered opinion.  "McLouth" is unhelpful because it looks like a name, it looks like it is probably an article on a surname, or a clan. "Simuna" and "Salorno" seem fine to me, and may or may not be fine to people interested in these subjects.  "Salorno", I would probably prefer to see at "Salorno, Italy" but I would certainly not presume to boldly do it without input from people interested in the topic.  On your ten random titles, I consider them: (1) fine, specific and precise and very unlikely to be mistaken for something else; (2) fine, expecting to find a biography; (3) fine, probably, accepting that the title case indicates that this is a creative work and not a bee keeping subject; (4) fine, looks like an eastern name, expecting a biography; (5) fine, wondering whether it should be Chinese instead of China; (6) fine; a name, expecting a biography; (7) fine, sounds like a mountain, not so concerned about mountains needing more information like obscure towns, could be expanded or merged to Admiralty Mountains; (8) fine, a name, expecting a biography; (9) maybe fine, I might prefer to see it at Siribala, Mali; (10) name is fine for now, article needs expansion or merging.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Frungi, maybe I missed it before, but you seem to be introducing a new criterion. That is, you seem to be saying that if a title "sounds like something that is not the subject of its article", it shouldn't have that title.  And you want to incorporate this new criterion into conciseness?  Is that right? How are we supposed to decide if a given name sounds like a certain type of thing?  I mean, does Plaus sound like a surname?     --B2C 02:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn’t say it even had anything to do with conciseness (rather, it’s naturalness); it’s simply another consideration, of which conciseness is but one. You asked specifically about that title, and I gave rationale for it off the top of my head. Titles aren’t, and can’t be, decided on just one of the WP:CRITERIA while ignoring the rest. —Frungi (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This section is about the wording of conciseness, and, therefore, what it means and how that applies to titles. In this subsection I'm asking about how the "informative" aspect of "conciseness" applies to the list of 10 random titles.  In particular, if McLouth, Kansas is preferred over McLouth because the latter is more "informative", why doesn't the concisness "informative" criterion apply to each of the obscure names in the list?  --B2C 03:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my confusion; I thought you were suggesting that we consider conciseness in a vacuum in evaluating these titles. Personally, I agree with both the current wording and Dick’s “The title is not overly long, but long enough [or: informative enough; comprehensive enough] to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.” To my eye, many of the selected titles are sufficiently informative to not be confused for other possible subjects. They don’t need further detail because they already meet recognizability in that “someone familiar with … the subject[s] will recognize” them (I think; I’m not actually familiar with any of them), and they’re not ambiguous. McLouth, on the other hand—even if it weren’t in a US state—is also clearly a surname, so it needs that additional detail to “distinguish it from other subjects”. Clear? —Frungi (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just disambiguation. Since there are other uses of "McLouth" on WP, the process applies to "McLouth".  So McLouth is not a good example for concision after all.  --B2C 21:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if there weren’t other uses on Wikipedia, there would still be other possible uses, as well as the natural inclination that a term like that is a surname. Adding the state is a concise way to clarify that. Also see SmokeyJoe’s recent comment above re helpfulness. And I don’t know if it’s just the way I’m reading your comments, and I apologize if that’s the case, but it still seems to me that you’re looking at conciseness exclusively from all other considerations rather than in concert with them. —Frungi (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If there weren't other uses on WP, then the WP process of disambiguation would not apply, other possible uses notwithstanding. US city names are an exception - for the vast majority of our articles we use the concise commonly used name of the topic, and only make it more informative if necessary to disambiguate from other uses of that name on WP, without regard to other possible uses.  We should not imply otherwise in our policy.   --B2C 16:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wording for a section on "conciseness"
I have made an effort to synthesize the discussion above, and would like to propose that we keep the wording for "conciseness" in the first section as is, and add the following section to the project page, after the section on preciseness:

"The overriding theme of conciseness is the balancing of brevity with sufficient comprehensiveness to identify the topic as it is likely to be known to the average person actively searching for that topic. An ambiguously named topic will require a longer title to distinguish it from other, similarly named topics. This is the case even for terms that have a primary topic. For example:


 * NYC redirects to New York City, but even though NYC would be a much shorter title, it has a number of other meanings that are completely unrelated to the city. Therefore, NYC is inappropriate for use as an article title.
 * McLouth redirects to McLouth, Kansas. Even though the title "McLouth" would be shorter; but "McLouth, Kansas" is both longer (though not very long) and more concise because the average reader would be likely to read McLouth alone as a surname.
 * Eric Clapton is the only notable person having that name. Eric Patrick Clapton, Eric Clapton, CBE, and Eric Clapton (musician) are all titles containing more information than is necessary to identify the subject, and in fact are less likely to be the title searched for by the average reader.
 * Tuulepealne maa is an Estonian TV series, which a very small proportion of English-speaking people are likely to have heard of at all. Although Tuulepealne maa (TV series), Tuulepealne maa (Estonia), or even Tuulepealne maa (Estonian TV series) would contain more information, this additional information would be unhelpful to the person who would typically be searching for this title, because they would not be searching for it if they were not already aware of the show.

It is important to note that conciseness can not be considered in a vacuum. Very often, the name which people come to adopt as the common name of a thing will also be the most concise name, because the ease of using a shorter name contributes to its adoption as a common name. Furthermore, if the most concise name for a subject is also an ambiguous title, then a longer name will need to be chosen, or a disambiguator added, to avoid ambiguity."

Cheers! bd2412 T 21:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I like some of the language above quite a bit; the introduction provides some good clarification, but I am opposed to one example. We have some local consensus for the naming of geographic locations that may vary the general rule and impose "internal disambiguation". I do not want to get into whether we should honor the local consensus, nor whether it is correct or not and the project page already states "Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria.... The point is that the general rule should not be changed and the principal we should be highlighting is stated in your introduction (and contradicted by the McLouth example as well as the Tuulepealne maa example): "...to the average person actively searching for that topic." Precisely. A person searching for McLouth already knows what it is. A person typing it into an article knows what it is also and will make the editorial decision of whether it needs a pipe or by context whether it's 100% clear ("the neighboring town, McLouth ". Our readers will only come upon Mclouth because they are searching for it (so know what it is), or through an article (which will in almost all cases give context to what it is). What other possibilities are there, if any? We don't need to disambiguate titles "internally" unless they are descriptive titles, as opposed to named things and you can't get more precise than describing a topic by its actual name. Advising that we should in any way is a slippery slope. Most things in the word cannot be recognized from their names unless someone already knows what they are. Ask yourself what you would think Pink Floyd was if you had never heard of them. I would guess a type of sea sponge. The logic scheme behind having   is no different than   and there's the soap for the slope.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and I suppose that it is too much to try and shoehorn a justification for geographic naming conventions into conciseness, particularly where they may represent an exception to the rule. bd2412  T 22:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd actually prefer to remove the USPLACE example from the precision section as well "Bothell, Washington" for similar reasons. Dohn joe (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck it for now. Cheers! bd2412  T 03:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"The overriding theme of conciseness is the balancing of shortness with sufficient accuracy to identify the topic as it is likely to be known to the typical person actively searching for that topic. A topic with a name shared with other uses on Wikipedia that is not the primary topic for that name requires a longer title to distinguish it from other uses. For example:..."
 * Let's avoid using "ambiguously" ambiguously. Do we mean "ambiguously" in the dictionary sense (conflicts with other uses uses on or off of WP), or in the WP sense (conflicts with other uses on WP)?
 * I continue to object to the use of "comprehensive" or "comprehensiveness" with respect to describing a goal of titles. A term, which is all titles usually are, are not comprehensive.   Titles are just convenient ways to refer to topics. There is no balancing to brevity - brevity (and conciseness) encompasses sufficiency. I suggest we use shortness and accuracy instead.  We use "New York City" rather than "NYC" because while NYC is shorter, "New York City" more accurately reflects the most commonly used name for that topic.
 * "Typical" is better than "average" in this context.
 * The sentence "This is the case even for terms that have a primary topic." is not true. E.g., Paris, Water, Houston, diamond, etc. etc.
 * So, putting it all together...


 * --B2C 16:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To me that makes it sound like the examples refer to instances where the term is not the primary topic. All of the examples are primary topics of the title, and other than NYC, are therefore the titles themselves. bd2412  T 17:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. I guess I don't understand what exactly these particular examples are supposed to illustrate.  NYC is not inappropriate as the title of that article because it has other uses; it's because "New York City" is the more commonly used name in reliable sources.  Eric Clapton is the quintessential primary topic example. Tuulepealne maa is the quintessential "only topic" example.  None of the examples support the contention that "An ambiguously named topic will require a longer title to distinguish it from other, similarly named topics for terms that have a primary topic."  --B2C 17:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of NYC is that although it is shorter, and the city is the primary topic of the term, it is too abbreviated to be the title. Note that New York City (disambiguation) exists, and that New York City itself is therefore not the only topic of that name. However, New York City is still more clearly about the city than NYC would be. As for Clapton and the Estonian TV series, they show that whether a name is famous or obscure, if it is the primary topic of the term, nothing else should be added or included. I would go so far as to say that if we were to title our Clapton article, Eric Patrick Clapton, the additional material would confuse readers rather than assisting them (although that is as much a common name matter as it is a conciseness matter). bd2412  T 17:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NYC is not "too abbreviated" to be the title. If that were the term most commonly used in reliable sources, it would be perfectly fine to use as the title.  See IBM, AT&T, NBC, etc.   If "NYC" were "too abbreviated" to be a title, then countless other examples, like these, would be too.   We should not be suggesting that NYC is not the title of that article because it's "too abbreviated" because that's not the reason it's not the title.  With respect to Eric Clapton and Tuulepealne maa, those two again are the most commonly used names to refer to their respective topics, for which each is either the primary or only use, respectively.  Conciseness or preciseness has very little if anything to do with these particular title selections.  --B2C 18:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, can you come up with a better example? A title that is better choice from between otherwise equal alternatives, precisely because it is more concise? My original example was New York City over New York, New York. bd2412  T 18:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * New York City over New York, New York or San Francisco over San Francisco, California are good examples of conciseness. It's difficult to find such examples because conciseness only applies when there are two potential titles both of which are used about just as commonly in reliable sources. In other words, in practice conciseness is only used as a tie breaker criterion, when the recognizability and naturalness don't indicate one (except for US cities which are the primary or only uses of their short names and are not on the AP list for which consistency is used instead of conciseness for the tie breaker).  --B2C 18:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * B2C, "conciseness" is certainly not only used as a tiebreaker. It is one of five criteria to be considered when titling. Omnedon (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NYC is not the name of New York City. IBM, on the other hand, is arguably a name of the company which is also known by a longer name, International Business Machines. So no, NYC should not be the title of the article on New York City. It is not concise. Omnedon (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In practice? I can't recall a single case where conciseness was a significant criterion and it was not between two potential titles of which neither was clearly favored by naturalness/recognizability (per usage in reliable sources).  Can you?  Where?  --B2C 19:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be talking about moves. I am talking about titling. New articles are created all the time, and conciseness is one of the five criteria to be considered when deciding upon a title. It matters. Omnedon (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about both. Can you provide any examples of article titles in which the title would likely be different if not for conciseness, and it's not a title where naturalness and recognizability (per usage in RS) don't clearly prefer that title over others? My point is this: when someone is picking a title, if naturalness and recognizability clearly indicate one particular title, and there is no ambiguity issue with other uses of that name on WP, that title will be used without regard to conciseness.  In practice, conciseness only matters in selecting titles when naturalness and recognizability do not clearly indicate one particular title, or the disambiguation process is at play. This is merely an observation. If I'm not seeing something, please let me know. --B2C 19:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a note from someone who was active when we first outlined the five criteria... we were not thinking of conciseness in as nit-picky detail as choosing between New York City and New York, New York (we would have said those are essentially equally concise). We were thinking of a situation like: Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA)... while not short, we chose that title because it was a hell of a lot more concise than the full (official) name of the organization... which is: The Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World) of the Inspectors General Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America. I hope you would agree that the full "offical" name would be ridiculously long if used as an article title. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. Well that is definitely a contrast in lengths, and would probably make an excellent example. See also When the Pawn.... I wonder, though, why not just title it the even shorter Mother Supreme Council of the World, which is apparently what people call it, and which redirects to it? Ambiguity concerns? bd2412  T 19:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I remember there were two reasons why we didn't go with "Mother Supreme Coucil of the World"... one was ambiguity (it helps to say what organization one is talking about in the title)... the other was POV (the Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Northern Jurisdiction, USA) disputes the claim of primacy made by the Southern Jurisdiction... so we chose to avoid that issue in the title.) Blueboar (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, usage in reliable sources (naturalness/recognizability) indicates the shorter one anyway. --B2C 19:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So there’s no conflict between the criteria here. Isn’t that a good thing? —Frungi (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lack of conflict between the criteria is a good thing, yes, but then it's not an example of a title that is what it is due to conciseness. --B2C 03:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would argue that if we choose a given title based solely on a single consideration (such as conciseness) that’s mutually exclusive with anything else, something has gone wrong. Why can’t it be an example of conciseness among other things? Or are you arguing for the removal of that criterion? —Frungi (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am trying to generate an explanation of what, exactly, conciseness means in terms of article title policy - beyond the blurb in the list of five things. That is why I would like to include a section teasing out exactly the circumstances where this rule would come into play in determining an article title. bd2412  T 04:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – keeping the undiscussed April change with the absolutist wording "no longer than necessary" is not OK. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Somehow, a term I used in discussing the definition of the word "concise" has made its way into the discussion in another way. I used "overriding theme" to describe the concept of balancing brevity with comprehensiveness, in that definition. In other words, that's the gist of "concise". In terms of the way conciseness is applied to article titling, I entirely disagree with using it to say anything that suggests the title should be as short as possible. I also disagree with excluding geographic name examples; the title "McLouth, Kansas" is a very good example of the balance we need. Omnedon (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

“Conciseness” list wording
Since the original topic seems to have sputtered out without much of a consensus, I have a pair of questions for everyone: —Frungi (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Does anyone other than User:Dicklyon have any objections to the wording “no longer than necessary to …”?
 * 2) Does anyone other than User:Born2cycle have any objections to the wording “not overly long, but long enough to …”?
 * I have been following this discussion, but have not posted on it until now as I did not feel I had anything to add that had not already been said. However, having been asked for an opinion now. to answer your two questions: 1. no 2. yes.  The wording “not overly long, but long enough to …” is clumsy and the objections raised to “no longer than necessary to …” are frankly ridiculous.  Just my 2c. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  05:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not attached to the awkward "not overly long" wording, but that's what we lived with for a while before the more absolutist "not longer than necessary" wording came in in April. We could go back to something more like what we had a few years ago: "Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point." Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support an unexplained "concise" linked to concise, perhaps quoting the single concise definition found there. Oppose sloppy wordy redefinition of the common word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick, the "no longer than necessary" phrasing simply doesn't fit with the definition of the word "concise". Omnedon (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is exactly what concise means. - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  02:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, "short and informative" does not equate to "no longer than necessary". Omnedon (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the wording is actually "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". You are cherry picking only part of what is being said in order to make it seem to say something it does not.  Taken properly in context the current wording equates to conciseness, properly amplified for clarity, -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  23:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, I agree that we should not have our own redefinition of the word here. With that in mind, we could use something like this: "Concise - the title is both short and informative." Omnedon (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about this: "Concise - the title is not substantially longer than needed to identify the subject". I propose this since the "informative" aspect of the title is identifying the subject, and not, for example, providing additional biographical information. Eric Clapton (born 1945) is clearly more informative, but the date is not needed to identify the subject. bd2412  T 13:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The combination of "short" and "informative" would not tend to lead to the title you suggest, especially when combined with the other four titling criteria. Omnedon (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not get hung up on the dictionary meaning of "concise" or "conciseness" and focus on the concept which actually is and has been the relevant criterion used to select titles for WP articles. At least partially because of this criterion, we prefer Ernstbrunn over Ernstbrunn, Austria, San Francisco over San Francisco, California, Sega Genesis over Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, Nikau over Nikau tree, David Owen over David Owen, Baron Owen and Napoleon over Napoleon I.  When push comes to shove, what's going on here is this: if two titles are otherwise equally well supported by the other criteria, and both are available, we prefer the shorter one.  Maybe conciseness is not the right word, but that's what this criterion is really about. Therefore, that's what the policy should say.   --B2C 20:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But the definition matters, as much as you wish to sweep it aside. And you should not say "we prefer" because not everyone agrees with you on these examples. One of those examples is spurious, because San Francisco does not include the state due to a completely separate issue. Further, I would not agree with your statement; sometimes the shorter title is preferable, but not necessarily. So no, that is not what this criterion is really about. Omnedon (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You want to live in a black and white world. And your direction is to get changes that can be enforced as black or white.  The problem with this is that we live in a grey world and the negative consequences of black and white choices are ones we can not live with, especially when someone is willing to draw a line in the sand and allow now variations.  Most of us can not live with that. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although that was not directed to me, I am interested in having a section offering expanded discussion of this topic precisely so I can know how to weigh those shades of grey. bd2412  T 03:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP title space is not "the world". We have control in WP title space that is incomparable to our lack of control in "the world".  "The world" is way over on the gray end of the gray-to-black-and-white spectrum, but where WP title space falls on that spectrum is almost entirely dependent on how we define the relevant polices and guidelines.  Can we get it all the way over to the extreme where there never is any debate about any title?  Of course not.  But can we move it closer to the black-and-white end by tightening up some of the language in our policies and guideline, in order to greatly reduce how much debate we have about titles?  Absolutely.  But those who want to have the grounds to argue for any title they happen to prefer will of course favor keeping the relevant rules regarding WP title space closer to the gray end of the spectrum.  --B2C 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

New conciseness proposal
At this point the language of the page still reads:


 * Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

This has been relatively stable language now for five months, so it presumably reflects the wishes of the community, although some comments in this discussion suggest that the original intent of listing "Conciseness" as a factor was to favor abbreviated forms over certain title of ridiculous length (e.g. the full name of the Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA)). That is probably the best example to reference here, since it has a "common name", Mother Supreme Council of the World, which presents ambiguity and has POV problems. I therefore propose that we keep the wording for "conciseness" in the first section as is, and add the following section to the project page, after the section on preciseness:

"Conciseness The overriding theme of conciseness is the balancing of brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic in a way that will be recognizable to the average person actively searching for that topic. For example, the full "official" name of the Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA) is The Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World) of the Inspectors General Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America. This title is even longer than Wikipedia's 255-character limit for page titles. Although the common name of the organization is Mother Supreme Council of the World, this title has problems, as it is both ambiguous and controversial, as other "Supreme Councils" dispute the primacy claimed by this organization. The resulting title, Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA), is the most concise title to fully convey the identity of the organization described in the article."

Cheers! bd2412 T 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the idea... but as an example, the SJ of Scottish Rite is a bit extreme (We don't want people thinking that conciseness only affects titles that are over the limit) ... also, it has multiple problems (other than conciseness) which confuse the issue. I would suggest we give an example that is more clearly a conciseness issue, and something that is more recognizable to the average editor ... what about: State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations vs. the more concise and simple Rhode Island?
 * That is reasonable, especially given that the longer form is the "official" version that appears on government forms. I still really like the Supreme Council, Scottish Rite example, and would like to keep it as a second example, because it shows the preferability of choosing a short but precise name to fully describe something where the full official name is too long, and the common name is ambiguous or controversial. Also, it would be the only place on the page to mention the 255-character limit for page titles, although we should never have titles even approaching that limit (for the record, the longest titles in Wikipedia are Another Demonstration of the Cliff-Guibert Fire Hose Reel, Showing a Young Girl Coming from an Office, Detaching Hose, Running with It 60 Feet, and Playing a Stream, All Inside of 30 Seconds at 190 characters, and Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­parao­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon at 182 characters).  bd2412  T 15:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added the language with the Rhode Island example. Cheers! bd2412  T 22:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal
The debate above has been helpful in hammering out some of the outlines of what would make sense. It seems that editors generally favor a change that would clarify the existing policy without carving out highly-specific exceptions for particular situations.

As such, I propose changing the following statement: "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."

To this: When there are multiple common names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and one of those names has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose one of the other names. Examples of names that have problems include, but are not limited to:
 * Former personal names, when the subject has stated a preference for a new name (for example, Cassius Clay, the former name of Muhammad Ali)
 * Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams that have had their names officially changed by their owners (for example, St. John's Redmen, the former name of the St. John's Red Storm)
 * Names that have become used less frequently because they are widely considered offensive (for example, negerboll, another name for chokladboll)

Thoughts? CaseyPenk (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

Updated 21:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC). Updated 21:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC). Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Updated CaseyPenk (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather than saying "it is perfectly reasonable", I would say "it is permissible", or perhaps even "it may be preferable". bd2412  T 21:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward "it is permissible," because it is more precise (permission is a much more precise concept than reasonableness) and because it is neutral ("preferable" starts down the slippery slope toward "required," and I don't think "may" is a good word to include in policy that's supposed to be more-or-less definitive). Great suggestion, and I've made the change in the proposed wording. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Although, just making it permissible does not suggest that we should use it. It seems like at least some editors want to favor the name-without-problems. Should we favor it or just make it one of the options? I see the value in saying "may be preferable," because it nudges toward the names that are less problematic, and that's sort of the goal. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We could say both - "it is permissible, and may be preferable, to choose one of the other names". The "and" makes it clear that it is not required. bd2412  T 21:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems a good change to me; I have no particular preference over the exact wording of "permissible" versus "preferable" etc. —me_and 21:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple of issues.
 * Keeping in "fairly" common is important. While it doesn't imply a hidebound rule, it should help avoid the situation where a person argues that whereas a purportedly "problematic" name has 14,000 appearances in reliable source, the target has 100, so it's also "common". This should help foster some measure of proportionality to parsing the section.
 * It should be fairly common "in reliable sources", with reliable source possibly linked.
 * We should consider adding (as we already have for changes of organizations names): "Common sense can be applied – if a person changes his or her name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change."
 * Very minor nit: pejorative should be singular, i.e., not "pejoratives".
 * --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions. I think "fairly common" is a weaker standard than "common." "Fairly common" could include almost anything (even things with a few hundred hits). Can you think of any language that's more demanding, such as "highly common" but not quite that extreme? Maybe considerably common, or significantly common?
 * WP:COMMONNAME already states that "common" means "common in reliable sources," so we don't need to repeat that here. I pulled out just the relevant phrase but when you look at it in context it's clear what "common" means.
 * We already do consider name changes as special - the policy already states "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."
 * Changed that. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * With "fairly", what I'm getting at is proportionality. Maybe we need to imply it (or directly state it) in a different way, but that example I gave, of 14,000 verses 100, begs to be resolved by something in the language. As to repeating "in reliable sources", we have a constant problem with people not understanding this and it should be reiterated ad nauseum.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording is clunky, but this phrasing is much more specific about what "common" means, removing any need to guess: "When a large number of reliable sources refer to a subject using a given name, but that name has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose a different name also used by a large number of reliable sources." CaseyPenk (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I had to reread what you typed two times as it is a bit confusing:

"When there are several names for a subject, all of them common, and one of the names has problems (Which one?), it is permissible, and may be preferable, to choose one of the other names....."


 * Just think it should be reworded somehow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree it is wordy. Could you clarify exactly what phrases you find to be particularly confusing? It sounds like "one of the names has problems" may not be completely clear at first? CaseyPenk (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed "several names for a subject, all of them common" to "multiple common names for a subject." What do you think? CaseyPenk (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * how about: "When there are several common names for a subject and one of the most common names has problems it is permissible, and may be preferable, to choose one of the other names....." ? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple works too I think "and one of the most common names has problems" should be added though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Smoother wording. I am concerned about the loss of precision by saying "common names" rather than "fairly common" or some qualifier like that. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I say "multiple" because multiple means 2+ whereas several might imply 3+. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, why do you prefer "one of the most common names has problems" to "one of the names has problems"? CaseyPenk (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple is fine then =). I just put up an example as I feel the wording "and one of the names has problems" should be clarified is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, understandable. The policy should be as precise and clear as possible. Thank you for the feedback. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome, hopefully at least something can be put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Knowledgekid87, I clarified the wording at the beginning of the sentence and tested out changing "one of the most common names has problems" to "one of those names has problems." The "those" should help with clarity, and it avoids us having to repeat "more/most common," but I realize it still might not be totally clear. I'm trying to make the wording as smooth and non-redundant as possible but also make it very obvious what we're trying to say. Let me know what you think. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have some quibbles and squabbles. First, the word "names" appears in both bullet points, yet in the first it seems clear it is referring only to names of people and in the second only to names of non-people. It might be better to say "personal names" in the first bullet to make it clear.

Second, "the subject has indicated preference". Shouldn't that be "indicated a preference"?

Third, the very act of changing one's name is to indicate that the new name is preferred. No one changes their name and then says "keep using the old name". So I would want to strengthen the claim to say something like "Former names, when the subject has stated a preference that the former name not be used".

Fourth, "Names widely considered to be pejorative" is not strong enough. I would phrase it like this: "Names that were officially changed or that have become used less frequently because they are widely considered to be pejorative".

Fifth, WP:COMMONNAME offers a list of 14 different examples to illustrate what it is saying. I think that one or two examples for each bullet would help. Muhammad Ali might be a good example for bullet point 1. St. John's Red Storm and Nanking Massacre might be good examples of the two parts I have suggested for bullet 2. 99.192.74.67 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * "Officially" sounds a bit too close to WP:OFFICIAL (i.e. legally changed). It may be a bit wordier, but something more like "where an individual has announced a change of their name". bd2412  T 01:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1, changed to "personal names" Many entities can change their name and state a preference, such as stadiums, events, etc. (although such entities cannot voice an opinion)
 * 2, changed
 * 3, changed There are cases in which the subject does not strongly prefer one side or the other - for example, with Private Manning, Chelsea's lawyer said "Bradley" would still be used, although Manning prefers to be known as "Chelsea." Hence, the criteria that the subject prefers the new name, even if they don't completely disavow the old one.
 * 4 -- how do you determine an "official" name? What if the subject has no official name, as in the Nanking Massacre?
 * 5 -- this is the one that presents some difficulties. Including examples would seem to suggest that we changed those article names specifically because of this policy, when in fact those titles predated this policy and were probably more common in reliable sources anyways. The Nanking Massacre one basically makes sense, but again, who says the Rape of Nanjing name was used less frequently because it was a pejorative? There are probably a multitude of reasons for historians moving away from the Rape term. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I separated name changes out from becoming-used-less-often-because-pejorative. They seem like two clear-cut, well-defined cases. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) No, entities like schools, buildings, and even sports teams cannot state a preference, nor are they the kinds of things that can have a preference, but wait for point 4 for more on this....
 * (2) :-)
 * (3) Ok
 * (4) When I say "names that were officially changed" I am thinking of schools, buildings, and sports teams. These things do not change their own names. Someone in an official position to name them does it. So the University administration at St. John's were the people who officially changed the sports teams' name. The "or that have become used less frequently" was meant for things that do not have an official name beyond what we happen to call it, like the Nanking Massacre.
 * (5) "Including examples would seem to suggest that we changed those article names specifically because of this policy" - I disagree. Re-read the text you are proposing. It says nothing about "changing" the name of articles. Your proposal is about how to name articles in the first place. It certainly will have consequences for cases where a change is proposed, but that is not what the text reads. Furthermore, it must read this way (as opposed to be about changes) because we want to cover cases where an article is being created for the first time as well. As for the specific Nanking example, I think it is a good one, but if you think there is some doubt that the name is less used because it might offend, then a different example could be used.. 99.192.74.67 (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * Thanks to Space simian above, we already have an alternative example to Nanking. The Swedish chokladboll used to be called "negerboll", but, according to it's Wikipedia page, "whether or not negerboll is the appropriate term has been the subject of media debate". 99.192.74.67 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * 1 and 4, you're correct that entities cannot change their own names. I separated personal name changes from entity name as two different bullet points, because they're two separate concepts and pejorative names are still a third.
 * 5, good point. I do think the examples help clarify what we're trying to say. I came up with a few examples I've heard from the debate over the past few days. Good idea.
 * What do you think about the proposal now? CaseyPenk (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, some names are controversial, such as Octo-mom, even if they are not necessarily used less frequently. I think pejoratives can be "problematic" regardless of whether they're in style or not. We still have to go by reliable sources, so it's not like we would make up some contrived name for Octo-mom. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Star Wars Kid is another good example. It is a nickname bestowed by society, and on record as being offensive to the subject, whose real name has been verifiably reported. It is not inherently pejorative, but its use with respect to this subject is. bd2412  T 02:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I think if we had a page on the actor himself, we would call the page "Ghyslain Raza." But we don't, so we're off the hook from deciding. (: CaseyPenk (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * CaseyPenk, I think it looks good, but I am not sure MWP is a good example. I believe he is on record (like Cat Stevens is) saying he has no problem with people using the old name. Ali is a much stronger example because he did call it his "slave name". BD2412, SWK might be a good candidate for a title change under this proposal, but is not a good example to use for the policy because, in fact, the article does bear the potentially pejorative name, so does not show an example of using something else. 99.192.74.67 (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * Yes, that is what I meant it as - an example of something that should be changed under this proposed policy. bd2412  T 02:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would we really want to retitle the SWK article? Since the article is about the video, which had only one common name. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are right. It is not a bio page about Ghyslain Raza, if it was SWK would be a horrible title indeed, but since it is about the video I do not think it has to be changed.--Space simian (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the "slave name" part makes it a very fitting example. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Octo-mom" might be a better example. It is easier to understand since it is in English and more universal. 'Chokladboll' has been criticised for being an expression of "political correctness" by some which avoiding "octo-mom" can't be accused of (I would think, I'm not always sure what people mean when they talk about political correctness though?).--Space simian (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording surrounding pejoratives, because really that case is about any name that causes offense (e.g. negerboll). Some names (e.g. Octo-mom) are not technically pejoratives but are still widely considered offensive. Thoughts? CaseyPenk (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My current thoughts are that this looks pretty good so far, but I do have one objection: I'd very much like to make sure that we don't run into the problems we ran into that caused us to start this discussion again, so I'd like to add a second example for name changes where the person changing their name is a trans person. Maybe I'm over thinking things, but I'd like to make it explicitly clear that trans peoples name changes should be affected by this, too, that way we can avoid firestorms like the one that happened at Bradley Manning. Am I over thinking things, or is this a reasonable thought? Cam94509 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That works for me, for two very basic reasons: (1) It's a good move - it helps clarify the policy for future cases, which will undoubtedly occur and (2) It's not a bad move - it is one in a list of examples and as such is not an exception to policy. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Why are we changing a policy that works based on one event?  We don't need to be ahead of what the reliable sources are stating.  Bradley will likely change to Chelsea due to the move of the sources.   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not being ahead of all of the reliable sources, we're just not waiting until a majority of them to catch up before we follow the front runners in cases where people would stand to be hurt if we don't. Also, we're not really changing policy at this point as much as we are clarifying existing text in a policy to make a line from the text of the policy ultimately not completely useless. Cam94509 (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the proposal, each name under consideration must be "used frequently in reliable sources," so if we're 'following the front runners' that just means we're following a sizable portion (say, 40%), of the reliable sources. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 40% is actually way to high. I'd think 10% would be sufficient. (Because the most common name may not even be the name used by 40% of the population.) Cam94509 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, we're not renegotiating the threshold at which a name becomes common -- that's already determined in WP:COMMONNAME and won't change. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I just wanted to make sure that nobody got the impression that 40% was some kind of magic number. Cam94509 (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, let's just go with 42%. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Seems like a pretty good answer for a lot of difficult questions, actually. If I only I knew what they were... Cam94509 (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 42 is a number commonly used as a joke. I was hinting that any number is arbitrary and that we should therefore not decide on a threshold. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Clarifying existing text" and using a figure of 40%, much less 10% is not a change? Hardly. It is a drastic change to the existing policy, as evidenced by the statement that "we're just not waiting...." The existing policy states "usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources" and this proposal purports to change that to a minority of sources. If we used the figure of 10%, we would have to change Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam. It requires that editors use a WP:CRYSTALBALL since we would be "waiting until a majority of them to catch up...." What is being proposed will have unintended consequences that may be detrimental to the project. We should not change the policy. GregJackP  Boomer!   10:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We were bandying about figures based on our personal impressions -- none of the figures are official, and we're not going to specify a threshold. There is no threshold and we're not making one. As always, different editors will interpret the threshold differently. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify, it's a stretch to call it a policy change. It's a clarification of the existing policy. The current policy already suggests consideration of alternatives to problematic names -- it just doesn't specify what kinds of names are problematic. This proposal makes the policy less ambiguous so editors know how to apply it (and aren't left scratching their heads as they were in the Manning debate).
 * Furthermore, this isn't just one situation -- the examples in the proposal show that this question comes up in many other articles. The transgender-specific bit was just suggested; all the other wording involves more general cases. And nor is the transgender question a one-off deal -- there will be more articles about transgender people, and we will have to struggle through the same issues if we don't have clear policy. As new situations come up the nuances of our policy needs to reflect our best practices. The core ideas stay the same, but we explain how the policy is applicable in different domains.
 * When I look back on the Manning debate, I am frustrated for a number of reasons. Among them: we could have avoided the entire debate and spared many hours and hard feelings if we had simply clarified what we already have on the books. I'm not too beat up about it, though: we have an opportunity here. Hindsight is 20/20, which is why I for one want to be proactive given the lessons we've learned. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully our reasoning makes sense, GregJackP. Let us know what you think. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, this isn't a clarification, it is a major change that is unwarranted, unwise, and unneeded. Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   10:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When adding such examples that singles out specific groups it is important to make sure the exception/rule itself can not be seen as pejorative (now or in the future) which often end up to be the case even if well intended.--Space simian (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am against this change for several reasons. "and one of those names has problems" is the most useful wording for a policy. Guidance for what problems are should reside in the naming conventions (At guidelines).
 * In general that's true, but we don't have naming conventions for some of these topics (such as LGBT people). There is a proposal at Naming conventions (identity) but that's all I've seen. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is because comments like "stated a preference for a new name" inevitably lead to the question "why just new names"? This leads us back to the "official name" verses common name argument. There is no "problem" with "new names" and such changes are covered by common usage and the sentence about that starts " If the name of a person, ... changes, then more weight ...". "Names of entities ... had their names officially changed by their owners". No it depends on several things and there is no bias in favour of the official name. Take for example Burma and Ivory Coast to name two obvious examples which would be affected by this proposed change. "widely considered offensive" this is affected by ENGVAR as well as a vocal minorities for political correctness reasons. If a word is becoming used less frequently, for whatever reason, then it is usual to go with the more modern usage (see for example the name of European Continental kings). In the case of the third example "chokladboll" (something I had never heard of until read here) of how does one know that is derived from the name of a person from Niger and not directly from the Latin word for the colour? How does one know that the name widely offensive (as probably like me most have never heard or it)? Nothing in the example article indicates it naming origin and the example the Met and nitty gritty should be a cautionary tail,. Slang word usage changes see for example the fuss of the use of gay to mean naff, (which is a sort of circle). The use of the word fag in London is not about the same thing as the use of the word fag in New York and what is a common insult in one country may not be the common insult in another. -- PBS (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the 'negerboll' example was that it was not meant or considered offensive but that it was obvious to most that it could be perceived that way and that there was not really any good reason for not using 'chokladboll' instead. It might not be an ideal example since no-one outside of Sweden is likely to be familiar with the debate, the pastry or realise how Swedens history and culture (e.g. not many immigrants from Africa) is different from e.g. the USA.--Space simian (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the main change that I would be comfortable with is something along the lines of the following:
 * You have established use of a second name in reliable sources, though this name is for now less common, even in sources *after* the new name was announced (if it was more common, you could just appeal to commonname). You must be able to make a reasonable argument that the secondary name has received at least 10% of the frequency of the "primary" common name in reliable sources.
 * The subject or owner of the thing in question has publicly stated that this is a new name for this thing (the name could be brand new, or an old name the subject is reverting to)
 * The subject or owner of the thing in question has publicly asked the media to cease using the old name (or has informed of this preference via OTPS email)
 * If those conditions are met, the second/new name could be used as the title instead.
 * Note that, per these conditions, both Burma and Ivory Coast would be moved to Myanmar and Cote d'Ivoire, and of course Bradley would become Chelsea, and Cat Stevens would move to Yusuf, and Republic of Ireland would move to Ireland. I note that most of those discussions were large, contentious discussions, so changing a policy in a way that would allow those to be moved would cause a lot of angst. But such criteria above are probably the only way to do so neutrally, and without getting into a relative-ranking of harm - instead we just trust the subject's own judgement. This of course becomes problematic when we're referring to dead people, who can't express a preference, in which case perhaps we would look at the preference of their estate? What about long-dead people, who have no estate or living relatives? Anyway, it's not perfect, but it's a start. Unfortunately, I'm afraid such changes would not get broad consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A few quick responses to some of the contributions since I last checked in. First, Cam94509: "I'd like to add a second example for name changes where the person changing their name is a trans person." I disagree. One of the strengths, as I see if, of the proposed revision is that it clearly does cover such a case while pointing out through the Ali example that the issue is not so narrow. By putting in an example of a transgender person it opens the revision to the accusation that it was only made to address this one particular case. A specific reference to a transgender person is not needed.

Second, PBS: "why just new names?" This is a good question. It need not be new for the person to state a preference for it. For example, a woman who took her husband's name when getting married, but then has a nasty divorce and wants to go back to her former name (eg; Roseanne Barr, who became Roseanne Arnold then went back to Barr). So maybe "when the subject has stated a preference for a new name" could be reworded as "when the subject has been known by more than one name and has stated a preference for one of them".

Third, Space simian: Octomon vs the Chokladboll - Both are good examples, but Chokladboll is better since there is evidence that people have used the term less often because of concerns that it is offensive, which is ideal as an example. I am not sure if anyone has really stopped using "Octomom" because it is thought to be pejorative. But also, "Octomom" is better covered by bullet point one, since whether or not she is offended by the name might be the relevant question. If she likes the name, then there is no problem with using it. It is also a better example to use since it fully illustrates the idea that some things have names without having an "official" name. About the worry that "chokladboll" is a peculiarly Swedish example that many might not know about is also not a problem. The example provides a link people can follow to learn why it is a good example and by having one non-English example it emphasizes the scope of the possible problem. So I like chokladboll as an example. 99.192.48.26 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * "and the most common has problems" - by whose decision does it "[have] problems" though? I'd suggest that because redirects can all lead to Rome then we should put the article at the one *chosen/preferred by the subject of the article* (where we are in BLP areas. Countries and buildings are a different matter.) WP is here to educate and inform, not to record ancient historical abuses, indeed 'youngsters' learning in these threads that Ali was as world-wide famous under his former name as he is now have been educated in that very fact. Let's be nice to the people who are subjects of our articles and call them what they want to be called - they rarely asked for the publicity and we should be friendly to our source material. --AlisonW (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the above, would you support moving Anders Behring Breivik to Commander Breivik? He has asked that he be addressed in that fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because we don't include titles in article names (eg Queen X / King Y/ Sir Z) --AlisonW (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * AlisonW -- Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? Charles, Prince of Wales? CaseyPenk (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Um... yeah. Even Queen_Victoria raised her royal eyebrows at that one. In any case, who cares? We call some guy "Metta World Peace" - so why not "Commander Kenobi"? Check this one - a GITMO guard, who converted, and renamed himself as Mustafa Abdullah - but guess where his article sits? Terry Holdbrooks! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - if we just go by subject's preference and ignore RS usage, then why *not* countries? Why not building? Disasters? And criminals - my god, they would have a field day! Here's a recent one: [Son of Sam]] aka David Berkowitz has apparently been reborn, and would now like to be called Son of Hope - should we move his article? His conversion happened in 1987, so I guess Wikipedia is being a jerk for, um, ~26 years here? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gonna bang the "specific small policies" drum again here. If instead of "legislating" broadly and catching the unintended, unanticipated consequences as they come up, legislate narrowly; when a new group comes up that may merit special consideration of a similar kind, run the legislation process again. Would support "people making a relgious conversion that publically reject their old name" as an initial category though. We can use our brains well enough to recognise the case of "my real name Jesus Christ". Chris Smowton (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) "by whose decision does it '[have] problems' though?" - By the collected wisdom of Wikipedia editors. That's the only way it ever has worked and the only way it can work. If someone sees a problem, they mention it, and then there is discussion to determine how big a problem it is. "Let's be nice to the people who are subjects of our articles and call them what they want to be called" Sometimes famous people have serious mental health issues. Comic actor Tony Rosato was institutionalized because of a condition that caused him to believe that his wife and child were abducted and replaced by impostors. David Berkowitz thought a dog ordered him to kill woman. Jim Jones claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus. So what if a notable person publicly declares "I am Jesus Christ returned to earth. Please use that name to address me"? It would seem reasonable not to rename the article in such a case.


 * If crazy people don't worry you, what about funny people? Stephen Colbert likes to periodically fuck with Wikipedia, getting viewers to change the page for "Reality" to say "Reality has become a commodity" and has told people to solve the problem of elephants becoming extinct by just changing the number that the Wikipedia page says. Richard Herring in his podcasts sometimes asks guests to verify facts listed on their Wikipedia pages as "citation needed". He then tells people to cite the podcast for the information, which some people have done. Comedians like to mess with Wikipedia and make fun of it. So all you have to do is tell them that we have to name a page with whatever name they say they want us to you and next thing you know some comedian will declare that his new name is "Wikipedia is a pile of shit" and he wants to be addressed accordingly. If we are forced with no editorial oversight to accept that (and then change it back a month later when he has had his fun) we set ourselves up for problems.


 * The simple fact is that it is very rare right now (including for transgendered people) for Wikipedia to have article titles that are not the name the subject wishes. Other than Manning, is there any other? And that one will be changed soon in the usual way. Metta World Peace's article was still called "Ron Artest" for a month after he changed names, too. That's not an unusual or unreasonable time frame. 99.192.48.26 (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * I would be surprised to see reliable sources such as major media outlets referring to a notable person as "Jesus Christ returned to Earth", if that person declared it. By contrast, reliable sources now refer almost exclusively to Muhammad Ali, Metta World Peace, and Chaz Bono. We can prevent the kinds of problems that comedians like to engender by relying on usages actually adopted in some proportion of reliable sources, even if those sources are split. By the way, Chelsea Manning is not the only subject not referred to by their preferred nomenclature in their Wikipedia title; see Yusuf Islam (a.k.a. Cat Stevens) and Snoop Lion (a.k.a. Snoop Dogg). bd2412  T 18:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * BD2412, you are agreeing with me. So long as we have some editorial oversight on names, we don't have to worry about people who have mental health problems or comedians (is that two different groups? :-) That's my point. AlisonW had recommended a simple "use the name they say they want" policy. That way leads madness. As for Yusuf and Snoop Lion, I know that Yusuf has said he is Ok with people using "Cat Stevens" and I have seen Snoop interviewed since the name change and he did not seem to indicate that what name people used was a big deal for him either. So far as I know Manning is the only person who does not want the current Wikipedia page name used. 99.192.48.26 (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * In that case, yes, I am entirely agreeing with you. bd2412  T 18:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that, per Space Simian, it would be difficult to do this in a manner that would be inoffensive, and you think the proposal is stronger the way it is currently written, I'm perfectly willing to go along with the current proposal. I'm willing to support a consensus that follows from the current text, given that it almost certainly does apply to trans people and is a probably a good policy in general. Cam94509 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The vernacular is always preferable as it is the most recognizable form. Self censorship is still censorship. The test of what title to use is simple; What do the preponderance of sources call the topic in question? Yes, give more weight to recent sources. Problem solved without a lot of touchy feely tea sessions or singing kumbaya around the camp fire.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. There was certainly a point at which Muhammad Ali was the most recognizable form, while a preponderance of sources were still using Cassius Clay. bd2412  T 21:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There was? I would like to see the evidence.  The media informs the masses is rather my point.  He wasn't getting "Ali" out there all by himself.  Why make this complicated?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Damien Cox, ‎Gord Stellick, '67: The Maple Leafs, Their Sensational Victory, and the End of an Empire (2009), p. 189: "In March 1966, the news broke that Ballard had cut a deal with Bob Arum, the lawyer for Main Bouts Inc., to hold a heavyweight fight between Ernie Terrell and Muhammad Ali, although most media outlets declined to acknowledge Ali's Muslim choices and continued to refer to him as Cassius Clay."
 * Andrew B. Lewis, The Shadows of Youth: The Remarkable Journey of the Civil Rights Generation (2009), p. 230: "A few weeks later Clay adopted the Muslim name Muhammad Ali, further increasing his notoriety. The New York Times refused to recognize his new name and continued to use Cassius Clay in its articles."
 * Mary Cross, 100 People Who Changed 20th-Century America (2013), page 510: "In 1964, the NOI replaced Ali's birth name, Cassius Clay, with the Islamic holy name of “Muhammad Ali,” a rare honor. Several competitors and members of the press refused to recognize the new name, however."
 * Gail Underwood Parker, It Happened in Maine, 2nd: Remarkable Events That Shaped History (2013), p. 114: "Announcer Addie used the name Muhammad Ali, but most reporters, including radio announcer Hodges, continued to refer to him as Cassius Clay. Some, including Ali's opponents, refused to use Ali's Muslim name for years."
 * Carrie Golus, Muhammad Ali (2006), p. 45: "But many reporters and editors continued to refer to him as “Cassius Clay” for years afterward."
 * There's the evidence. Cheers! bd2412  T 21:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi BD2412, I don't really want to debate the Cassius Clay move that wikipedia made back in 1964, but you assert "Muhammad Ali was the most recognizable form", but also recognize that the media wasn't buying it. What leads you believe MA was more recognizeable than Cassius Clay? -- (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that many in the media refused to use Ali in favor of Clay. But what was he commonly known as?  Did the kids at school and the talk at the water cooler indicate a preference?  I suspect the media influenced the peepul quite heavily.  And it is pretty much the only thing we have to go with in any case.  BTW, I wasn't being snippy and demanding you look that stuff up.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A third proposal
I was originally thinking of something along the lines of: That would be a rule only affecting people saying that new names are preferred but only if they have been accepted by at least some reliable sources? --Space simian (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If a person change name, and both the old name and the new name is fairly common, the new name is preferred even if it is less frequently used.


 * I don't like it. Kim Novak was a huge movie star, but has not made a film in over 20 years and is out of the spotlight now. This proposal says that if Kim Novak takes her husband's last name (Malloy) that the page should change location. That seems entirely unhelpful to most readers, even with redirects. Now you might want to say that if she did this that maybe the name would not be "used", but that might only be true if you try to limit the scope of what it means for a name to be "used". If a Kim Novak fansite starts using the new name, it's being used. The fansite need not be a "reliable" source in general, because it is certainly a reliable source on the question of whether or not the name is being "used".


 * There has been some talk in recent discussions of the importance of Wikipedia "educating" people and how even this discussion has helped educate some people about the fact that Muhammad Ali was once famous with a different name. But I think the time has come to start educating people that article titles are not statements about what the name of a person is. As an article title, people should learn to think of "Cat Stevens" as short for "the article about the person who is most well known by the name 'Cat Stevens'". That is what a title is saying and that sentence is both undoubtedly true and cannot possibly be taken as an insult to him or anyone else to say. Even when Prince went through a phase of not using his name he was often described accurately as "the artist formerly known as Prince". To use that phrase was not to continue to name him "Prince". 99.192.91.187 (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * That was my first reaction to the Manning MR as well: "people just do not understand Wikipedia policy on title selection", I thought, countless title controversies and especially the Manning MR have illustrated that. However, as an encyclopedia Wikipedia's goal is to educate people, if people does not get it we can either try to improve peoples understanding of wikipedia policy (not likely) or we can try to improve the policy so they do. Wikipedia is here for the readers so we have to try to minimize the risk of them misunderstanding. If I have to choose between a policy that leads to 'Cassius Clay' and 'Kim Novak' or one that leads to 'Muhammad Ali' and 'Kim Malloy' I would pick the latter because it can not be misunderstood to be derogatory and therefore minimizes harm, both to the subject and to Wikipedia. (Besides, I do not think a fan site would be considered a reliable source in that case, it is the frequency of use in sources that would be relevant to the article that counts). --Space simian (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an article is to educate... but that is not the purpose of the article title. We definitely should educate our readers by noting that Kim Novak is now married and goes by the name "Kim Malloy", or that Manning has come out as Transgender and changed names in the process... but the place to educate our readers about this is in the text of the subject's bio article, not in the article title.
 * The purpose of a article title is not to educate... a title's purpose is threefold: 1) to distinguish one article topic from another... 2) to help readers searching for an article on a specific topic find it easily... and (to a lesser extent) 3) to allow readers and editors who are randomly surfing Wikipedia know what the article they land on is about. Novak is still best known by her maiden name.  Manning is somewhat in flux (with some sources still using "Brandley" and others making the switch to "Chelsea"... my take on it is that enough sources have made the switch that we should do so as well... but the important thing is that the decision is based on what sources do, and not our own POVs on the issue.)  Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do we stand?
The discussion has veered off in a few different directions and I'm not sure where the sentiment actually lies. My main goal is clarify what "problems" means, however we do that. An idea I've been discussing with Obi-Wan Kenobi is that, rather than list out the problematic cases, to simply point the reader in the direction of where to find what would be problematic. We could direct the reader to the rest of the page (which covers controversial titles like Octomom) and the specific naming conventions (that cover topics such as royalty). Thoughts?

Also - there are a variety of possible ways to approach this, so I created a sandbox at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/COMMONNAME sandbox. Feel free to experiment with different wording as you see fit. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I checked the sandbox. I don't see the point of proposal 2. It seems almost a non-change. Advising that people check things that already exist is not much help. But I like proposal 1. It seems a lot more helpful 99.192.79.196 (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * The reason for proposal 2 is that proposal 1 has encountered a fair amount of option, so I wanted to offer something that's less controversial while still clarifying the policy. The point of proposal 2 is that it clarifies where the problems are defined in existing policy -- rather than leaving the editor to guess what "problems" means.
 * To be clear, I think the main problem with COMMONNAME as it stands is the ambiguity over "problems." Any way we can fix that is a step forward. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm still for trying to see if proposal 1 can get the support it needs. If the discussion goes toward talking about proposal 2, I'll just have a nap instead :-) 99.192.79.196 (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)


 * Any ideas on how to move forward on proposal 1? The debate seems to have stalled a bit. And I would very much appreciate your support for proposal 2 if it comes to that, even if it's not your favorite. I still think it's a meaningful improvement on what's there now. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the discussion was started at 20:57, 3 September 2013, 31 hours seems a bit rushed to start further than the above. Why not give it another 36? There is quite a bit to read and take in.
 * Also, where has the discussion been announced? Since this discussion was motivated by an issue of interest to strong partisans, the widest possible awareness of it should be brought to the larger community. I've never followed the Village Pumps much, but at least an announcement/notification there would seem warranted. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc  03:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that announcements would help get more input. I fear the arrival of the highly-motivated partisans of recent disputes. This proposal is Baby Bear, but there are lots of people who will fight to the death for Papa Bear or Mama Bear solutions. (Speaking of which, the article is really titled "The Story of the Three Bears"?) 99.192.79.196 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * I like the analogy. It does seem a bit bizarre that as soon as someone mentioned the word transgender a whole bunch of people arrived and criticized the proposal. Which is to say, this is highly partisan as Carol mentioned. I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at, but I think the proposal I put forth is relatively modest and not a drastic change -- it's a clarification of what's already there. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect people are more interested in arguing about arguing than they are in wikipedia policy. --Space simian (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Announcements would be a good idea. I mentioned it on the Manning talk page, which will certainly have reached a fair number of partisans on both sides (which sort of inflames the debate; it might be nice to get some different perspectives). Thanks for the suggestion. Oh, and I like to do things quickly. If you ever see me edit articles I waste no time; I'm not hasty but I get things done as quickly as they can be. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My question is: When do we take proposal 1 to a !vote? I'd rather at least give it a chance to fail on it's own if we can't get enough support for it, and if and only if it fails, move forward with the less powerful (and in my opinion, mostly irrelevant) proposal 2. I don't think it's necessarily time for that yet, as it might still flounder and fail, but what are we looking for before we take the step forward and actually try to get proposal 1 made into a formal thing? Cam94509 (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We can do a survey / !vote any time. Let's wait and see if any more comments come in in the near future, and then we can put it up formally. Let me know once you think it's a good time, Cam94509. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A point of curiosity about proposal #1: given that it doesn't spell out particular cases, does wiki do "caselaw"? By that I mean, if I wanted to move X to Y and used that text as a policy foundation, would that establish precedent such that future arguments over moving nearly-X to nearly-Y can cite that move as having essentially made case-policy? Chris Smowton (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Intuitively that makes sense, and naming from other articles can provide some helpful guidance, but you'll often hear pushback from users citing WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ultimately cases do not create policies; we don't go by precedent but by what's on the books (which itself changes). Furthermore, we don't do retroactive / grandfathering considerations; we go by current policy and don't consider what the policy "would have been" at the time the article was created. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In a legal sense (although Wikipedia policies aren't laws), we follow civil law and not common law. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Although Wikipedia does not defer to precedents, WP:TITLE does list Consistency as one of its bases for determining a proper title; it can be argued that a certain result would yield greater consistency with titles of similarly situated articles. bd2412  T 01:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Continued discussion of proposals on the table

 * I've added a new proposal, #5. At this point, it would be great if contributors could take a look at the 5 options, and add any additional ones (or tweak wording - it's not policy yet, so be bold), until we get close to a change you would support. Ideally, I'd like to get this down to three options: (a) Do nothing (b) Change X and (c) Change Y - that way, when we open this up for an RFC we can present a few clear choices.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the current proposals, I have to ask: Does anyone support Proposition 1 over Proposition 5? Is there anything proposition 1 does that proposition 5 does not do? Also, does anyone support proposition 3 over proposition 5? Just wondering, because I like propositions 1 and 5, and I think 5 is arguably the better of the two of them. Cam94509 (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5 is more expansive, and more explicit about requiring a statement in RS about preferring a new name. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see. I'm asking if anyone prefers 1 or 3 to option 5, because, if not, we can just focus on option 5 for now. Cam94509 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * From my POV, the only two proposals worth talking about are P1 and P5. In general, I like them both. Bullet point 2 (BP2) from P1 seems to be dropped in P5. That seems to me to be a large omission that makes P1 preferable. BP2 of P5 would be covered by BP2 of P1 (a country is an "entity") if the word "owners" was changed. I didn't like using that word in the first place, so I like making that change to P1. BP3 of P5 is good, but could be covered in the "personal names" BP by making it "names of people or groups of people". My two main concerns with P5 are I am not sure the examples chosen are all good ones (but this is a minor point, not a fatal flaw) and I worry that the more detailed the proposal is the stronger the opposition from the "let's do nothing" folks might be. So I guess on the whole tweaking P1 so that, without making it much longer, it covers countries and groups of people more clearly would be my preferred choice. 99.192.57.25 (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192...)
 * I made a proposal 6 along those lines. Feel free to edit it with different examples and such. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I admire the effort and the intention is good, but on first glance P6 is worse because it is longer. We've gone from 3 to 4 to 5 bullet points. I might try tomorrow to piece something together that is more concise. 99.192.57.25 (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * Leave out Ivory Coast. That by itself is an entire can of worms that you don't want to open here. bd2412  T 02:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Changing BP2 (of either P1 or P6) to say "Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams whose names have been officially changed" and leave out "owners" covers countries.99.192.57.25 (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * I think we need to look Ivory Coast in the eye. The sources are rather close - Ivory Coast is perhaps 2x at most vs Côte d'Ivoire, and the govt has expressed a clear preference.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not as an example, no. The best examples are clear cases. Right now, Wikipedia's article is called "Ivory Coast", so it is actually a very poor example to use. It might be a candidate for a name change based on the revised guideline, but it is not (yet) an example at all. 99.192.57.25 (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * True - I guess what I meant was, any policy we put forth should allow an (eventual) move of Ivory Coast - otherwise we're missing the point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * the reason I removed the sports teams/buildings/organization is because the standard being proposed here is that a rename is not sufficient - there has to be a RS that says 'we prefer you call x vs y'. It's hard to see how going with commonname for a sports team, building or org could somehow hurt someone's feelings, and I can't think of a case where the owners came forth and caused a media issue over use of the old name. It would also mean we have to move big ben to elizabeth tower, which violates the heck out of commonname. As such, in those cases it's better to wait for commonname to catch up. These are meant to be exceptions to commonname, not 'anytime anything changes their name we follow blindly'. we may also want to quantify usage of most common vs target name - what do you think about target name being demonstrably at least 10% of most common - esp if we look post-name-change? That would ensure we are following at least some sources - frequently is just too vague. The examples can be debated but I do think it's useful to put forth several.. I think we should separate groups of ppl as we need to have special rules around how to know whether a group really wants to rename themselves, vs just a minority of that group.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The teams and buildings idea came from examples I offered, including the St. John's example used in the BP. When I mentioned the examples in the first place they were all examples of entites whose names were changed because the old name was thought to be offensive. That last element has been lost in the BP wording. So perhaps saying "Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams whose names have been officially changed because their previous name was regarded as offensive" or something like that. 99.192.57.25 (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * Yeah, changing the wording about the sports teams would relate back to the comment I made just below regarding the intention to "avoid offense" / honor WP:BLP. E.g. Red Storm, Washington Redskins (although the Redskins opposition is not exactly mainstream). It would make the different cases cohere more logically together and would cut out cases of thoughtless / attention-grabbing name changes. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like proposal 5, with the teams/buildings now removed, is mostly focused on avoiding offense. Perhaps we could relate this back to WP:BLP? It seems like the main goal there is to respect the wishes of the subject / those who are generally "allowed" to speak on behalf of the subject. I would also note that many in the Manning move discussion cited BLP, so there's some sort of belief that WP:BLP extends to honoring the wishes of the subject (as in MOS:IDENTITY).
 * Regarding the 10% or whatever threshold, two concerns -- 10% seems quite low.. to me, that 10% can represent a whole lot of radical ideas that are most definitely not mainstream. I mean, the number of people who believe in Elvis conspiracy theories is probably way more than 10% of the population. Should we really give equal weight to a niche population like that? Should we start saying Elvis is still alive, just because 10% of the population has been convinced? What I'm getting at is that, in my view, 10% doesn't qualify as "common" per COMMONNAME.
 * I'm not so sure if we can / should quantify coverage like that. I personally think The New York Times should count for 25% of all RS in a formula, but others may attack it as biased and say it should count for 1% (vice versa with Fox News). Which sources are the most reliable? What's the weight of each? It seems like those are tricky questions we could avoid by being general and leaving it open to the interpretation of the editors. I had thrown out the 40% figure before, not because I think that should be a hard and fast rule, but because I think our proposed additions should only make a difference in edge cases, where the split is roughly 60-40 (as it has been in the Manning RS until the past few days). In other words, I think our proposal should only for a limited set of changes and not allow for really obscure names to become titles. Perhaps there's a different way we can describe the quantity of sources needed. Significant? Considerable? Modest? Extraordinary? High? Large? Wide? Heavy? CaseyPenk (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not followed any of the discussion about percentages as it was introduced as a "for example". Any discussion about trying to quantify references in the policy is an extremely bad idea. Since it keeps coming up, let me say for the record that I strongly oppose any and all suggestions that involve percentages being included in any revision. 99.192.65.45 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * I personally prefer p5 or p6 so far but I think we should limit cases to names of people or groups of people (countries can probably be considered a group in this case), since this change is mostly motivated by trying to get the policy more compatible with the thinking behind WP:BLP. I also note that there is a discussion about stadiums above where people seem to prefer the common name more than the official i.e. the opposite what this suggests.--Space simian (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "...since this change is mostly motivated by trying to get the policy more compatible with the thinking behind WP:BLP." That might be the motives of others participating in this discussion, but it is not mine. But as I noted way up above, if names that can cause offense are of a concern at all, then names of buildings, schools, stadiums, and foods are all within the legitimate scope of the discussion. As for the above discussion of stadiums, there they are talking about cases where there is a clear common name and the common name is not problematic to use, so it is a different issue. Personally, that qusestion seems like a no-brainer that becomes more complicated because some people think the "official" name should be used even when it is not the common name. But that's a different dispute not relevant to this one. 99.192.65.45 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * Yes, it's clearer now, after the last update, what we mean. --Space simian (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * BLP is best server by following the usage in verifiable reliable sources. The consensus for Burma and Ivory Coast (with input from scores of editors) clearly contradict what you are saying about countries. And those are the easy ones, try stepping into the quagmires of articles about ethnicity; nearly any article that involves the Israeli/Palestinian issue; border disputes in Eastern Europe; whether something was or was not a genocide/massacre etc; who owns Liancourt Rocks and so can decide on the official name? We have a whole humorous page on these issues see Lamest edit wars and Lamest edit wars/Names. My serious point being that I think some of those in this discussion are focusing too narrowly on one specific issue and are not considering the wider ramifications (which I think a read of LAME would help fix), and so (to repeat myself) I think "and one of those names has problems" is the most useful wording for a policy. Guidance for what problems are should reside in the naming conventions (At guidelines). -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I think it might be good to limit the scope to people... but I suspect the proposed change will at best make it easier to make a decision in those cases and at worst not make any difference at all. I've been looking at the past RM of Ivory Coast, it's a bit weird because some news agencies seem to insist on using 'Ivory Coast' while governments, the UN , NGOs  and other encyclopedias  all use 'Côte d'Ivoire'. Either way, it does not to appear to be a big deal if we end up with 'Côte d'Ivoire' since that appears to be the more encyclopedic option. (If you check the talk page there is a list of previous RM and clearly there is no consensus.) --Space simian (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * All this talk of the complexity of country cases makes me feel more strongly that my suggested rewording of P1 ("Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams whose names have been officially changed") allows for countries to be considered, but would not really change any of the current debates that have been going on about Burma or Ivory Coast. The specific mention of countries in P5 and P6 seems to be a very bad idea as well as unnecessary. 99.192.65.45 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * I've removed Ivory coast, and added Kolkota instead, which was also hotly contested, and arguments were made that Calcutta is still the most commonly known. I agree, we shouldn't have a page that hasn't *actually* yet moved to the new target. I do think we should call out governmental entities and associated renames there, as there are special cases around what a govt is "allowed" to name - in the case of Burma, there is reasoned debate that a military dictatorship is not an authentic arbiter of names and many opposition groups oppose the rename, so Burma may remain where it is for that reason. On the other hand, no-one that I know of is opposed to "Cote d'Ivoire". But there are disputed entities which two governments claim and name differently - in this case we shouldn't take sides - just a long way of saying, government changing the name of something is a special case that deserves its own bullet point and shouldn't be conflated with stadiums.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the proposals all miss an important point... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common... then there IS no COMMONNAME ... thus, WP:COMMONAME would be moot. We would reach a consensus as to the best title by looking at all the other criteria and provisions of WP:AT and finding the right balance between them.
 * That said... the COMMONNAME does need a re-write. It has become incredibly jumbled and confusing, due to instruction creep... and the amount of repetition is ridiculous. It needs a clean up, not more instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are right that the above proposals only give additional guidance when there is no clear COMMONNAME (or when the COMMONNAME is very likely to change) and possibly de-emphasize the importance of frequency a little when there are possible BLP concerns, so it is no major change of the current policy.--Space simian (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe "all of them fairly common" needs to be changed a bit, but my reading of it was to say that we are not talking about a completely obscure name while, at the same time, there might actually be one common name. There is no doubt that "Joe Namath" is THE common name for Joe Namath, but he has been called "Broadway Joe" as a nickname and it uniquely picks him out. So there is a clear common name, yet there also is something that is common enough to be an alternative if one were needed. 99.192.65.45 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * Yeah, that part might need some more work. I think there is agreement that the name needs to be commonly accepted by reliable sources and that there needs to be a problem with the more frequently used name, e.g. the subject has rejected it in some way. What we want to avoid is changing the name because a fringe group is trying to promote a controversial name, e.g. a sect promoting their leader as the new messiah, so we need to check with reliable sources that there is broad acceptance for the alternate name. --Space simian (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar, the language (at least in #5, which I just changed further based on the above discussion) is clear that this is about cases where (1) there is a most common name and (2) the most common name has problems. Please take a look at #5 now - I've removed examples where the page hasn't yet moved (Cat Stevens, Ivory Coast), and added a bit about being careful about government claims for disputed naming rights (such as an island both countries claim, who gets to name it - in these cases, we default back to commonname and WP:CRITERIA). I also re-added the stadiums/sports teams/etc example, but made it clear that this is only to be invoked when there is some sort of wide acceptance of offense - which would thus eliminate companies that rebrand stadiums for vanity reasons - we should still wait till the new stadium name catches on in RS, and not jump right away.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the phrasing "COMMONNAME" is sort of off-mark to begin with. The idea that there is one all-encompassing, definitive common name for every subject is simply a fantasy. Many entities are referred to by multiple different names, some of which are more common and some less common. In such cases we need to exercise editorial judgment and pick one or another based on our reasoning. The idea that all subjects can be describe using a single "COMMONNAME" rather than, say, "COMMONNAMES," unnecessarily constricts our options. Rather than think in terms of one single name, why don't we think about the range of different name s ? CaseyPenk (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be great if articles could simply have multiple titles. Then, in contentious move debates between two names, you could just say "both". If the user comes in via Bradley, they see "bradley" - if they come in via Chelsea, they see Chelsea. Then we let google/the world decide which version of the page is worth linking to. But thats VP-technical sort of question, and it may cause more trouble than it's worth. I don't like the idea of hybrid titles (like aluminum/aluminium), etc. however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, having something in the software that could show it both ways would be delightful. It's similar to how, when you search for a page using a certain name, it takes you to the correct page but it keeps the URL of the search term you used originally (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:TITLES . Whether it's easy or not, such a feature would certainly be possible to implement, and would be a great help in cases such as these. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just think from the DB perspective, the page has to live at a given place, so there would probably always be the "really truly absolutely database-level official name", and people would still debate over who gets to hold that slot - and which of the "redirects" could be turned into "titles", vs which would remain lowly redirects. Ultimately, these arguments are about resource scarcity, and the title is the most scarce resource in all of wikipedia. There aren't multiple articles and multiple POVs, there is one wikipedia article per topic. Other content debates can be wrangled with wording, but usually not titles. Sayre's_law comes to mind: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." - There's a bit of that going on here as well, we should create a COMMONNAME analogue... My least favorite argument is "We can create a redirect from the other page" - which even I, in my jedi-like wisdom, have used - but it's completely meaningless - because the other side can say the same thing and be equally correct.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday I complained that in the proposals we had gone from THREE bullet points in proposal 1 to FIVE bullet points in proposal 5. Now I see proposal 4 has grown to up the ante to SIX bullet points. More is not better. It makes it worse. So I am going to have a crack at modifying proposal 1 without lengthening it. Here's what I came up with. I call it Proposed wording 99:

When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and the most commonly used one has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose one of the other names. Examples of names that have problems include, but are not limited to:
 * Names of people or groups of people, when the subject has stated a preference for a different name (for example, Cassius Clay, the former name of Muhammad Ali)
 * Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams whose names have been officially changed because the old name was thought to be offensive (for example, St. John's Redmen, the former name of the St. John's Red Storm)
 * Names that have become used less frequently because they are widely considered offensive (for example, negerboll, another name for chokladboll)

Ok. That looks pretty good to me. Names for ethnic groups (like the Ktunaxa) or collections of people (like the still uncontroversial - but who knows in the future - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) are covered by bullet point 1. Countries or other places that change names thought to be offensive are covered by bullet point 2, as they are kinds of "entities". (If Lost Coon Lake in Montana, formerly known as "Nigger Lake" decides that maybe the name is still a problem, a change would clearly fall within the scope of this bullet point.) I am not really worried about covering countries specifically anyway, but even if none of the bullet points covers them the "include, but not limited to" preamble clearly allows for them to also be considered. There. Still just three bullet points and three examples. I like it. 99.192.87.226 (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * Oppose: This entire discussion is taking the policy in exactly the wrong direction... away from a neutral determination based on source usage... and towards a non-neutral determination based on "what is the desire of the subject".
 * What you are trying to address is the question "What should we do when the official (or self-desired) name of a subject changes"... The answer to that question is... "WAIT... Do NOT immediately change the title of the article. Wikipedia does not base it's article titles on the subject's official name or self-desire. Instead it bases its article titles on usage in reliable sources"
 * What we should be addressing is the question: "What should we do once source usage starts to change?" The answer to that question is... "follow the sources (giving more weight to those written after the subject announced the change)...  Look at both the quantity of sources that are changing their usage, and the quality of those sorces. If a significant majority have changed, then we should change our title to reflect that shift in source usage.  If a significant majority have not changed, then we should continue to reflect the sources by using the "old" name.  If a significant majority can not be determined, then we can say that there is no COMMONNAME... and we should reach a consensus based on other criteria and provisions of this policy. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I understand where you're coming from, and I understand where COMMONNAME stands on this issue. The challenge is, there are cases where COMMONNAME hasn't yet caught up with subject's preference - because the weight of previous sources sometimes outweighs the new ones, or it takes a while for the new name to propagate - and we are making a presumption here that not titling the article per the subjects preference has the potential for harm. The changes above are intended to modulate commonname to allow the selection of a (slightly) less common name - suggesting that it IS already used in reliable sources - even if NOT YET a majority of sources. The intent is to consider the potential harm which could be done to a subject and balance that against the needs of the readers. the trans* name change is obviously the extreme case, but we have many others. I'd be interested in getting your support for this, so wondering how we can adjust the proposal to address your concerns.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, to echo what Obi said, the Manning debate has been a cautionary tale that COMMONNAME as it currently stands does not deal gracefully with cases of transgender people among others. Many editors expressed a concern that using the subject's former name violates WP:BLP or is otherwise harmful. We both would appreciate your support and are wondering what's suitable to you. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Two quibbles. First, as I mentioned above, BLP and harm to living people might be the concern of some people, but it is not a concern that I have, and I do support a wording change. Second, what I think Blueboar is missing is that these proposals are not about creating a new policy, but to simply clarify existing policy. The policy as it reads right now is this: "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The main purpose of these proposals is to provide some guidance about what can and should count as "has problems". The idea of not taking the most common name when it "has problems" already is policy. We are just making that existing policy more clear. 99.192.83.251 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I just figured out how to edit the proposals, so I have modified proposed wording 1 with the suggestion I made a few comments up. 99.192.73.248 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * 99... I accept that your intent is to merely clarify existing policy, and not to change it, I even accept that you believe your proposal achieves your intent.  However, I feel that the proposal does in fact change existing policy... and I think it does so significantly.  It moves us from being completely neutral (following the source usage) to being non-neutral (following the subject's wishes).  For me it is that simple. Furthermore, I am unconvinced that entitling an article using the subjects "old"  name does any serious harm to the subject.  Especially since we would note the name change in the text of the article, no matter what title we give it. (Indeed, we would probably note it in the very first sentence... and in big bold print).  No, using someones "old name" does not harm the person. Blueboar (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, let's start with what you and I agree on: I also believe that using an unpreferred name as the title of an article does no harm to the subject that we should be worried about. But here is where we disagree: You believe that the present policy is neutral by relying solely on what the sources say. I don't see how you can read the present wording and come to that conclusion. So I have to ask you this: Can you give me an example of what would count as a correct application of the current policy, the one that reads "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others"? If anything, your support for being "neutral" and "following the source usage" seems directly at odds with this part of the policy. So what's an example of applying the present policy? 99.192.50.55 (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)
 * OK, first... Our concept of COMMONNAME refers to situations where there is one name that stands out as being more recognizable than others. So... "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common"... then there is no COMMONNAME.  There is no need for the WP:COMMONNAME section to talk about whether one of the choices "has problems", because it does not apply in situations where there are multiple common names.  When there is a COMMONNAME (one name that stands out because it is used significantly more often in reliable sources) then that name is what we should use because it best conforms with our title criteria... it will be the most recognizable name... and it will almost always be the most natural name.
 * Now let me address the issue of Neutrality. When it comes to titles, for us to be truly Neutral, we have to step back and "not care" what the outcome of any article title deliberation will be. We look at the evidence as presented in reliable sources, and give the various options DUE WEIGHT.  Now... if the subject of our article desires to be called X, we should (and do) give his/her wishes a reasonable degree of weight... but... when a significant majority of reliable sources call our subject Y, then that predominance carries more weight.  It would be non-neutral for us to favor the wishes of the subject over what is used by a significant majority of reliable sources.
 * Of course, in situations where there is not a significant majority (ie there is no COMMONNAME), then we don't have that predominance outweighing the due weight we reasonably give to the subject's desires. When there is no COMMONNAME to outweigh alternative titles, we can look to other policy/guideline provisions to choose the title (indeed we have to do so).  Then, I would say we should follow the subject's desire (if possible).
 * So... when a person or entity announces that they have changed their name, we recognize and accept that there will be a transition period... It's a three step process.
 * Step one... as soon as the change is announced, we should make a note of that announcement in the text of the article. However, at this point the "old" name is still more recognizable... so we don't change the title - YET.
 * Step two (once one or two sources start to use the "new" name), Highlight the new name as an "alternative name" in the lede sentence (in bold letters in the lead so people pay attention to it). At this point we would also create a redirect page for the "new" name.
 * Step three - as more sources use the new name, the old name ceases to be the COMMONNAME. We then can swap things around... the "old" name becomes the "alternative" and the "new" name is used for the title. The redirects would also swap.
 * How quickly this occurs depends on the sources... it might be just a matter of a few days... it might be years. But since we are neutral as to the title, we shouldn't care how quickly it happens... at each step we let the sources drive our actions. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of things to unpack here. First, you say "So... 'When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common '... then there is no COMMONNAME." That is incorrect. The policy clearly says, "...some topics have multiple names ... Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used ... This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: 'COMMONNAME'." So if one name is used 52% of the time and another name is used 48% of the time, the one used 52% of the time is the "COMMONNAME". But at the same time it is also true that the one used 48% of the time is "fairly common", satisfying the sentence "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems...." There can be a COMMONNAME and at the same time other names that are "fairly common".


 * Second, you spend a lot of time here talking about names of people, which is understandable given the context in which this discussion arose, but the proposal is about a lot more than just that. So with a team name or the name of a food, also examples, there could be a case where one name is used 52% of the time and another name used 48% of the time, yet the one used 52% of the time has problems. In a case like that, the policy says it is ok to use the 48% name, even though the other one is the COMMONNAME. 99.192.55.192 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * I agree with Blueboar. I also think that way this conversation has been structured by claiming "Current proposals on the table" when in fact the proposal not to implement any of them is missing, makes the construction and structuring of this section biased. It is like the metaphor used by EU proponents that the process is a journey to ever closer union, if one accepts the constraints of that metaphor then one is automatically forced to carry out a conversation within that metaphor and open oneself up to the accusation that "your are missing the train". Likewise this conversation is structured to imply that the current wording is inadequate and therefore needs changing, and that "ain't necessarily so". -- PBS (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * PBS, with all due respect, you are evading my question. The current policy says it is ok not to use the most common name when it "has problems". That is the existing policy, not any of the recommendations. So I am asking Blueboar (and now you) to give me an example of a situation where current policy would say that we should go with the less common name, because the policy is clearly saying we can do that. What do you think counts as an example of this situation? 99.192.50.55 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.912....)
 * I think the hang up is the interpretation of what is meant by "has problems". The intent was to cover things like the need for disambiguation (if the COMMONNAME is ambiguous, we can consider alternative names as a way to disambiguate).  "Has problems" was never intended to include debates over name changes.  We consider such debates normal routine and not "Problems". Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct that a lot rides on what "has problems" means, which is what these proposals were meant to address. The whole point of them was to explain in some detail what that phrase could mean. Your claim that it was not intended to cover cases like the proposals describe got me wondering whether there was any evidence in the archives about when the wording was added and why. I found that the wording was added on August 22, 2011 in this edit as a result of this talk page discussion (which should look familiar to you). Looking at that material it seems likely that the phrase "has problems" was meant to refer back to the mention of "ambiguous or inaccurate names" and non-neutral names mentioned earlier in the paragraph. (Worries about titles being "vulgar" or "pedantic" were added to that paragraph subsequently and was in a later paragraph at the time "has problems" was added.) It would be more clear that the "has problems" was referring back to these if the wording were "has any of these problems" instead. But without it, it can remain an open question what counts as "having problems". 99.192.55.192 (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * I really see very limited difference between all 5 proposals. If one is looking at these proposals for guidance, the bottom line is they all say "it is permissible (and may be preferable)." That does nothing. Ivory Coast will still be Ivory Coast under that ambiguous wording, and there will still be plenty of turmoil because words like "permissible" and "may" aren't words like "don't" or "must." My thoughts are this seems like a lot of work for something that really doesn't do much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To my mind, the virtue of greater clarity is that in future cases where the name for an article might be disputed it will help settle the question of whether one of the fairly common names "has problems" (in which case the decision about what to name the article should not be seen as just a question of determining what the most common name is) or whether none "have problems" (in which case it would seem that the COMMONNAME should be used). In a dispute it is all too easy for supporters of the COMMONAME to deny that this is one of the cases covered by the "has problems" wording. By doing this proponents of the COMMONNAME might attempt to shut down a legitimate discussion of whether or not that name should be used. If proponents of a "fairly common", but not most common name can point to specified examples of where a name might "have problems", then they can prevent a legitimate discussion from being shut down. You are right that the result of such a discussion might be to go with the COMMONAME despite the "problems", but at least that would happen by consensus, not by misapplying policy. 99.192.55.192 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * I guess I haven't seen a complete shutdown by citing COMMONNAME. That certainly didn't happen with Ivory Coast or Burma. Those were lengthy consensus discussions, even with cabals, so they wouldn't apply at all here. Of all the contentions issues we have at wikipedia, if any of these new proposals come to fruition, I don't think it will make a difference in 99% of them. Plus, almost all the time the most common name has any sort of problem, the alternatives have problems also. So again, when the dust settles, this seems much ado about nothing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Fyunck(click), you doth protest too much, methinks. If you really believe that nothing is riding on this discussion, why are you wasting your time participating in it? 99.192.55.192 (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * Me thinks you might want to register here if you want us to take your input really seriously. Right now I'm answering a posting from an editor who has been editing for one day only. I don't care if it stays the same, or any of these 6 choices go through. I see no difference in where articles will wind up because of any of these proposals. Tightening up wording is always good, but the ifs and maybes are staying the same. This thread caught my eye and I gave my input fwiw. And who know...choices 7–12 might appear in the future that I might really like or really hate. I'm not sure if changes to COMMONNAME are needed, but if these are our only choices then I would oppose change just for change's sake. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I like proposals 1 and 3. Proposal 2 makes so minor a change that I don't think it will affect debates or be worth the bother. I feel the same way about Proposal 4, which is also vague enough that I can see it creating more uncertainty than it removes (especially given how many people feel that AT is the only page that governs article titles). -sche (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Copy edit I think we need to be careful not to create more problems while trying to resolve one. It's clear that people here want to be able to use a subject's preferred name, if that is common. I don't see a big deal with that and I think that's largely our practice right now. I think the hang up really is on the phrase "use the most common name", whereas in reality our policy and practice is to "use common names, usually the most common name, but not always". The section already comes with sufficient get-out-clauses to cover the desires above. For example:"'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. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.'"So, I think rather than making changes to probably the most widely-cited policy (with all the unexpected outcomes and drama that will probably follow), I think we'd be better of copy editing the current policy to make it more readable and succinct. Anyone up for a stab at that first? --<tt style="color:black;">RA</tt> ( &#x270D; ) 09:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

alternative proposal
The sentence is misplaced. If there are multiple names, "all fairly common" then COMMONNAME does not (indeed can not) apply... there is no COMMONNAME. It may be that it could work in some other section... but it does not really belong in COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove the "has problems" sentence from the WP:COMMONNAME section entirely.


 * See my just added comments above. It would seem that if you want an alternative that merely clarifies a different reading of existing policy, you would want "has problems" to be replaced with "has any of these problems", thus referring back to the problems that are mentioned in the paragraph already. 99.192.55.192 (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * Blueboar, would you agree that if a notable person publicly announces a name change, and this name change and the person's new name are widely reported and discussed in reliable sources, that the new name is "fairly common", irrespective of whether some of those same sources choose to call this person by that name in other reports about them? In other words, can we, in the wake of a widely publicized and well reported name change, immediately thereafter consider the new name to be "common" for purposes of WP:COMMON? bd2412  T 14:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and no... Given that your scenario specifies wide reporting on the new name, we (probably) can justify saying that the "old" name is no longer the COMMONNAME... However, it may not be enough to establish a new COMMONNAME. I would still urge caution. For example, I could envision a situation where the media has a brief flurry of reports on the subject's announcement... but if subsequent media reporting goes back to using the old name then  the flurry of reporting on the announcement would not be enough to say that the old name is no longer the COMMONNAME.
 * Let me repeat that in a different way... the post-announcement media reports may be enough to question whether the old name is the COMMONNAME... but it may not be enough to say that the new name has become the new COMMONNAME. Each case will be different.  And there is often a period of time where there is no COMMONNAME (in which case, WP:COMMONNAME would not apply, and we would look to other criteria to determine the best article title.)
 * So... even in your scenario, my advice would still be to WAIT... give the sources time to settle down and establish a consistent (post-announcement) usage. Then consider changing the title based on that (post-announcement) consistent usage. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe you missed me recent reply to you a little higher up, but it is clear that you have the wrong idea about what manes a name the COMMONNAME. In short, unless two or more name have an identical frequency of usage, there always is a COMMONNAME. The policy clearly says, "...some topics have multiple names ... Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used ... This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: 'COMMONNAME'." So if one name is used 52% of the time and another name is used 48% of the time, the one used 52% of the time is the "COMMONNAME". But at the same time it is also true that the one used 48% of the time is "fairly common". 99.192.71.2 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * Nope, I don't have the "wrong idea" about COMMONNAME... I was was working on this policy page when it was first introduced, and have been involved in almost every discussion about it since then. I know well what it means.  It has never been, nor never intended to be a simple frequency count. Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your story about being there when the policy was written is interesting, but I quoted the policy as it is written and it says that you are wrong. The name used most commonly is the COMMONNAME. 99.192.71.2 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * OK... then let's look at the policy as currently written. It says:
 * When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the criteria listed above. Bolding mine for emphasis.
 * That sentence has been in the policy since early 2010... and clarifies what we mean by COMMONNAME. The phrase significant majority is important. It addresses two issue: first that the COMMONNAME is not just a 51% plurality... and second that we do take the quality of sources into account (a majority of low quality sources may not be significant enough to off set a minority of high quality sources). Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You are seeing things that are not there. It says what to do when it is not obviously obvious that the COMMONNAME is used by a significant majority of sources. It does not purport to define what the term "COMMONNAME" means. The part I quoted comes at the start of the section and explicitly presents itself as a definition. 99.192.71.2 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * Addendum: I just looked at the discussion from Feb 2010 on this page and it is VERY clear from that that the participants took "most frequently used" to mean the same thing as "common name". In fact, much of the discussion was about using the phrase "no obvious common name" which ended up being written as "no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used". So "most frequently used" = "common name". You also fail to recognize that saying that there is no obvious common name is different from saying that there is no common name at all. There will still be one. It is just not obvious which it is. 99.192.71.2 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * Again... the key word in "as used by a significant majority" is: "significant". You keep skipping over that word. Blueboar (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Ok, I'll spell it out for you again: "common name" = "most frequently used"; "obvious common name" = "used by a significant majority". Is that clear enough for you? 99.192.78.50 (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * OK... I can accept that this is your interpretation of that sententence... but as the author of the sentence, I can assure you that this was not the intent. The intent was "common name" = "used by significant majority".  (and please don't say that you know my intent better than I do). Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would never tell someone I know better than they do what they meant. It is obviously obvious that people are the best source for what they meant. But having read the discussion that took place and seeing how the phrase "no obvious common name" was used over and over again by them before the final wording was reached, it was obviously obvious to me that they obviously meant "common name" = "most frequently used" and "obvious common name" = ""used by a significant majority". 99.192.66.121 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

WP:COMMONDAB?
Do the general principles of WP:AT such as WP:CRITERIA apply to a part of the title in parenthesis? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say the intent is that they should... but we should probably examine some examples before we say yea or nay (especially some "tricky" ones that could make us think about unintended consequences). Did you have one in mind? Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally with any question we don't start with tricky ones. How many articles on en.wp have parenthetical disambiguation as part of the title? 300,000? 800,000? I'm asking a very basic question. Hasn't anyone ever asked this before? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say that they should apply, but less rigorously than for the "meat" of the title. The issue arises over the proper use of "(entertainer)" as a disambiguator even in cases when few sources use the term to describe a particular subject. There's been quite a series of requested moves focused on this disambiguator. One argument made by In ictu is that because there are often few results for searches for "entertainer Foo" as opposed to "singer Foo" or "actor Foo", WP policy forbids (or discourages) using "entertainer" as a dab. My position is that when someone is WP:NOTABLE for more than one entertainment discipline, choosing one to the exclusion of the others is inaccurate and possibly misleading. "Entertainer" is a suitable umbrella term for someone notable as an actor and a singer. A similar situation arises in sports, when someone is notable for more than one sport. In those cases, we sometimes use "(athlete)" as a suitably comprehensive dab, even though few sources may use it to describe the athlete. Dohn joe (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's only one unusual example. If I'd have wanted to mention that I would have done so. Introducing it skews the question. The question is "Do the general principles of WP:AT such as WP:CRITERIA apply to a part of the title in parenthesis?" In ictu oculi (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why decide? We can have articles for Michael Jackson (singer), Michael Jackson (dancer), Michael Jackson (human), and throw in Michael Jackson (entertainer). But seriously though, I think in case of parenthetical disambiguation it makes sense for the contents of the parentheses to be as general as necessary to unambiguously identity the subject. No more general (then we wouldn't know who we're talking about) and no more specific (then we make somewhat POV choices about which of the hats they've donned has been the most important). The parenthetical bit is for disambiguation anyways so it's not really the core part of the title. The parenthetical text should be intelligible, and common in reliable sources, but I don't think we need to consider the title alongside the parenthetical as a fixed, packaged phrase. No one refers to anyone as Singer John Doe (all in one breath). We just call them John Doe, and mention that they sing. In other words, there's no "common" way to refer to someone with an ambiguous name, so the best shot would be something that sums up their work neatly. In short, "entertainer" seems like an entirely suitable designation, as would similar general categories. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Casey thank you but I cannot immediately see what WP:POVFORK has to say about whether WP:AT covers all of a title (including dab) or only non-parenthetical section. What about Spider! (TV series), Garhbeta II (community development block), Pârâul Caprei (Turia), Emily Cox (puzzle writer), Liberty Building (Buffalo, New York), Pocketwatch (album). Does WP:AT cover the section in parenthesis or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the criteria apply, but with caveats - a dab is inherently odd, it's a Wikipedia creation meant to avoid namespace collision, which in the physical world doesn't cause the same problems, and when we have name collision in language we get around it with so-called 'natural' disambiguation. Thus, the pre-dab portion should be the part that closely hews to WP:AT - and the dab itself should be structured in such a way as to unambiguously differentiate the subject from other like-named articles (note - the point is not to Unambiguosly differentiate the article from all other known entities with the same name even those not present). Thus for better or worse dabs tend to get more specific only as new namespace collisions happen. Generally dabs should follow a set pattern so as to be easily recognized by readers - for example, we shouldn't have (novelist) (author) (writer) - we should settle on one ideally - and I also agree it should tend towards the more general description, but nonetheless one readers will recognize.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The bit about the POVFORK was a saracastic joke to say that we can avoid this discussion by creating multiple articles for every subject. Perhaps I should put a sarcasm tag on such statements in the future. (:
 * "a dab is inherently odd, it's a Wikipedia creation meant to avoid namespace collision" -- exactly my point. The non-parenthetical bit clearly falls under WP:AT, but the parenthetical bit, I think, has a bit more leeway attached. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, it behooves us to use parentheticals that are recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent, i.e., that meet WP:TITLE. bd2412  T 18:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Common sense and policy. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If so, then...
Okay, thanks, next question: If WP:AT covers the part of titles in (brackets) where does WP:AT say that it covers it? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it explicitly states so anywhere; I guess people assume the parentheses are a part of the whole anyways. We could clarify under "2. Parenthetical disambiguation" under "Disambiguation" that WP:AT applies to the parenthetical bit as well. I don't think it hurts to state things explicitly if they might be unclear. That helps the reader and clarifies it for future situations. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And if not, then we can keep choosing reasonable disambiguators as we have always done. What problem are you trying to fix? Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mentioning that parenthetical parts of titles are in fact covered in WP:Article titles would fix the problem of Users not knowing whether WP:AT applied to parenthetical parts of titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, they're not really "covered". What would you want WP:AT to say about what makes an appropriate disambiguator?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If parenthetical dabs are not really "covered" then I would like WP:AT to say something like: "This guideline does not cover parenthetical disambiguation Providence (TV series), but does cover non-parenthetical disambiguation such as Providence, Rhode Island." In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

.