Wikipedia talk:Article titles/precision

Precision and disambiguation

 * If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification.
 * When a topic's most commonly used name is ambiguous (can refer to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia), and the topic is not primary, that name cannot be used for the title of that topic's article and so must be disambiguated. This is often achieved by adding a disambiguating term in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma); however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of title in order to avoid the ambiguity. If the topic has a name (some topics, like List of countries, do not have set names), then any alternative title should still reflect a name that the subject is commonly called in English. While a name may be chosen that is less common than the (ambiguous) preferred name, avoid choosing an obscure name, or making up a new name. Where such an alternate common name exists in standard English, it should be used instead of the most common name, as a "natural" disambiguator. For example, the word "English" commonly refers to either the people or the language. Because of the ambiguity, we use the alternate but still common titles, English language and English people, allowing natural disambiguation. On the other hand, "mercury" has distinct meanings that do not have sufficiently common alternate names, so we use instead parenthetical disambiguation: Mercury (element), Mercury (mythology) and Mercury (planet). Note that the planet has the potential natural disambiguation title: "planet Mercury". However, although the phrase "planet Mercury" appears in some contexts, it is not what the planet is actually called, so it's not an appropriate title. In summary: Use names that are commonly used in reliable sources; do not invent neologisms. For topics without names, like List of countries, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles.

WP:PRECISION Proposed version discussion
Explain your edits to the consensus version here.
 * What I'm trying to say with the last sentence --Note that the last of these has a potential natural disambiguator of Planet Mercury, but it is not used as an alternate title as that is not what it is commonly called -- is that "natural disambiguators" should still be what a topic is commonly called, not merely referred to. I refer to my brother as, well, "my brother", but that's not what he is called. Similarly, even reliable sources commonly refer to that planet as "planet Mercury", but that's not what it is called.   --Born2cycle (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, Hesperian, I bet you could pare down this monster and still have it convey as much. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said it was just a noun phrase rather than an actual alternate title. It think that's on the right track, but just needs better language than I used before. By the way, having this trancluded and each person changing it and then explaining each change... this is not conducive and if we weren't far along and not many of us involved, would have killed the discussion. We might muddle through now, but I would personally shoot this format in both knees after a kidney punch.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this less conducive than having multiple versions floating around in various comments? At least this way it's focused in one spot in a format we're all accustomed to - it's like we're all editing the same article.  Plus, because it's a subpage, there is the history and the diffs that we also all know and love. On to substance - I'm not sure "noun phrase" tells us anything, because  a noun phrase may or may not be something the subject is called.  I'm tempting to say it has to be a name, but there was some objection to that in the past.  One thing I tried to do at WP:How2title is distinguish named entities from unnamed entities.  If we did that here, then we could say that named entities must have a commonly used named for their title, or the most common name must be disambiguated with parenthetic disambiguation.  It's the unnamed entities, like List of countries in Asia, that have descriptive names that are not names.  What we want to avoid is giving a descriptive title to an article about something that has a name, but that name (alone)  is unavailable.  We should disambiguate that name, parenthetically, not come up with a different descriptive title.  How do we say that?   --Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of lines incorporating the above point plus something that Bkonrad said earlier, but it needs to be worked in better. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pruned/reworded some too. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this an open party? I found this page, and tweaked the consensus version up there. I broke up a long sentence, and a long paragraph. I also changed a passive-voice verb to active, and made a bit of formatting consistent ("English" and "mercury", instead of English and "mercury".) I hope that's okay. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some tweaks, which my edit summary describes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All good improvements. There is an issue with the first sentence as it stands -- Where the name of a topic is ambiguous because it refers to more than one existing Wikipedia article and is not primary.  The subject of the sentence is "name of a topic" which "is ambiguous".  However, the name of a topic is not what is or is not "primary" - it's the topic that's primary.  But that should be easy to fix. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just made some copy-edits to the first paragraph. Broke up a long sentence, chose a more appropriate verb... nothing controversial, I don't think. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the explanation made at WT:TITLE about problem with using "recognized name", I've made some adjustments too. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Last sentence: For articles about topics without names, ... --Born2cycle (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First sentence before: Where the name of a topic is ambiguous because it refers to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia, and the topic is not primary, .... After: When a topic's most commonly used name is ambiguous (refers to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia), and the topic is not primary, ... --Born2cycle (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Change "disambiguating word" to "disambiguating term" because it's not always just a word. One more paragraph break to set off intro of this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Before: If the topic has a name (some topics, like List of countries, don't have set names), then any alternative title should still reflect a name that the subject is commonly called in English. While we may choose a name that is less common than the (ambiguous) preferred name, we avoid choosing an obscure name, or making up a new name. If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, use that instead. After: If the topic has a name (some topics, like List of countries, don't have set names), then any alternative title should still reflect a name that the subject is commonly called in English. While we may choose a name that is less common than the (ambiguous) preferred name, we avoid choosing an obscure name, or making up a new name. Such an alternative name is used instead of the most common name as it is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English.
 * Are we ready to integrate this into the actual policy page? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like something about the tone or tense or person of "While we may choose a name that is less common than the (ambiguous) preferred name, we avoid choosing an obscure name, or making up a new name." Thinking out loud.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it. I think this reads much better, oui?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I know what you mean, and that's not my wording, but I think the point was to use active voice rather than passive. Your change goes back to passive.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it reads much better, regardless. Passive voice is not actually the devil everyone makes it out to be. All this "we" and "we" stuff had to go. I think it should sit a little longer Born—we only started the discussion of language about 30 hours ago. Maybe if we let it sit a little, someone will fix the sentence "Such an alternative name is used instead of the most common name as it is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English". I think I know what this means to convey but it parses all wrong.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah; no hurry. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's looking pretty good. —Kevin Myers 07:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the point of mentioning "planet Mercury" as I don't think it would ever be seriously considered as a possible title and I'm don't think it is a very good illustration of anything other than a purely hypothetical pedantic point. That is, I don't think it is a very strong illustration of natural language disambiguation. I thought the example using the various William Pitts worked quite well to illustrate most all of the common methods of disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 15:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I like that example! Especially the punchline. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Formulaic?
(tangent discussion moved to Wikipedia Talk:How2title)
 * I think this version is (at the moment) way more complicated and confusing than the "current" language. I think you are trying to come up with a formulaic "one-size-fits-all" approach to something that does not lend itself to a formula.  What I think we want to get across is that a) when more than one topic could be called by the same title, we need to disambiguate to be precise.  b) There are multiple ways to disambiguate (parentheticals, commas, using alternative names, using a descriptive title instead of a name, etc.).  All are allowed... but deciding which is best will depend on a host of factors that are unique to each article, and that is best determined through discussion and consensus at the article level (with input at the project level).  Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It does lend itself to being formulaic - you just have to recognize how the factors are prioritized relative to each other. This is demonstrated in WP:How2title.  I've been making my arguments based on that formula in RM discussions lately, and it's quite effective.  Definitely needs a few more tweaks, but it does demonstrate that the process does lend itself to being formulaic. The alternative is to do as you suggest, which is effectively to provide no guidance at all, because everyone is free to prioritize the factors any way they wish, and vary the priorities according to whim from one decision to the next.  That's what I, for one, am trying to get away from, because it makes deciding titles a coin tossing process and ultimately responsible for the unnecessarily long WP:RM backlog.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of turning it into a deterministic formula, and I don't see the long backlog at RM as necessarily an indication that we need to change how we think about titles. I like that priorities are hammered out, in the field, on a case-by-case basis. The "how2title" essay, IMO, encourages following a formula rather than engaging the mind, and I'm not sure that's a good idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it still engages the mind, but it's about engaging the mind consistently to discourage arguing factor A is more important than factor B to favor title C over title D, and then arguing factor B is more important than factor A to favor title E over title F. The point is that before you can decide on title C or title D, or title E over title F, you have to decide whether to prefer factor A over factor B, or vice versa, and then apply that consistently to both cases. That's the point of WP:How2title.  It's about interpreting the criteria as consistently as possible from one case to the next, which, if adopted, should greatly reduce the backlog.   That doesn't mean there are no judgement calls, it just clarifies many of the calls.   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that reducing the backlog is a goal at all. It doesn't hurt me that it's long. I think that those determinations, of which factor is more important, should be made in the field, on a case-by-case basis, and I don't see any reason that it has to be consistent across all applications. Yeah. I disagree that a reduced backlog and a consistent priority order for naming conventions are part of our goal-set at all. If the community decides on consistency, consistently and on a case-by-case basis, then consistency becomes a priority. I haven't seen that happen. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reducing the backlog might not be a primary goal, but the size of the backlog is an indication of how much controversy there is about titles, and reducing the backlog size would be an indication of a reduction in controversy. Isn't that a goal... making title decisions less controversial?  If not, what's the point of having the policy at all? Let me put it this way, isn't providing guidance a goal here?  If not, what is the point of, well, policy and guidelines? Now, the issue here is deciding what a title should be.  We can identify the factors that go into deciding titles, but is that guidance?  I mean, when all the factors indicate the same title, the answer is obvious; there is no need for guidance.  When guidance is needed is for those cases where some factors indicate one title, and others indicate another title.  When that happens, what do we do?  It seems to me that that is the question that needs to be answered to meet the goal of providing guidance for the task of deciding titles. And to answer that question, the guidance can and must be more formulaic, as demonstrated by WP:How2title.   --Born2cycle (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's stay on topic. This is not about how2title. I fail to see how this is formulaic and no one has explained in what way it is. I see this as a clarification of the existing language that better captures what we already practice. In the mix, the idea that we can title "using a descriptive title instead of a name" is not accepted practice and goes against the spirit of the policy as written and as applied. We do not invent titles when topics have existing names; that is not an acceptable form of disambiguation for a topic with a name. In any event, reading the current text and the proposed text, I see little difference in content, but only a clearer voice and better elucidated examples, with explanatory text that will help the many people I see who find this area slippery.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that this is a bit of a digression about how these criteria are to be applied. But as I indicated above, the present proposed revision does not seem to me to make a very good illustration of natural language disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 03:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a tangent. Good times; thanks for keeping us on-task. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that English → English language / English people is a very good and easily understood example of natural disambiguation and that Mercury is also an easily understood example of a clear case for parentheticals— at least it is using the deity and element. I think I agree though that the planet explanation is a bit off topic and had suggested earlier just taking it out.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support removing the "planet Mercury" bit. That's the part you're talking about, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We prefer "Mercury (planet)" to "Planet Mercury"... why? There must be a reason.  And whatever that reason is, I'm sure it applies to other cases too.  We should figure out how to explain it better if you don't like how it's explained now, but taking it out completely means missing an opportunity to clarify how we draw the line between when to use natural vs. parenthetical disambiguation.  Or are you implying maybe it should be at Planet Mercury?  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is advocating for Planet Mercury as an article title, no. We prefer "Mercury (planet)" to "Planet Mercury" because the latter is ridiculous. Nobody says "planet Mercury", and I don't think most people would consider that as a potential title. The other planets aren't disambiguated that way, either. We draw the line on a case-by-case basis, and it's okay to just say that. Some illustrative examples are helpful, but we're not trying to list a comprehensive set of precedents for people to follow. All that example does is say that we only use natural language disambiguation if it really is "natural language". It's inherent in the word "natural" that we don't use stilted, little-used phrases that will make people say "what the heck?!". -GTBacchus(talk) 04:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * People do say "planet Mercury", and often in a similar context to saying "Mount Whitney": Look, over there, just over over Mount Whitney, it's planet Mercury.  The difference is that "Mount Whitney" is a name - it's the answer to the question, "What is the name of that mountain?".  "Planet Mercury" is not the answer to the question, "What is the name of that planet?".  That's the difference.  And maybe that's how we express it.  For named entities, the title of an article has to be a plausible answer to a "what is the name of ..?" question.  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, people say it. It's not unheard of. Still it's not, as you say, the name of the planet, and people don't use it as a name. I guess that's what I meant by "nobody says" it. It's not what we call Mercury in natural language. It's not a natural language name for the planet. It's a natural language phrase that refers to the planet, but that's different from a name. Do we need that example to show that we use the names of things to title articles? That's a pretty fundamental point; is it not made anywhere other than this putative paragraph? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)