Wikipedia talk:Names of articles on recent events

Why this page
This naming convention has been implicitly proposed at Talk:2015 Thalys train attack. If it is to be adopted, we should make that official. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that’s what I think. I mean, that’s what I find, as a reader. Applies to small randomish type events. I assume the titles are well short of 42 characters. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful to clarify WHY this is necessary/useful. What we are typically talking about are 'recent news' articles. These are often not in the news long enough to have established a 'commonname', or that name is unclear during the time of greatest reader interest (the few years following the event). Typically we are talking about relatively short-term high profile events which often have the added complication that they will be much better known in the country in which the event occurred. 'Columbine school' has become notorious world-wide for a single event, but similar violent, but less 'famous' incidents, do not share the same 'reader recognition'. I can think of many European events where a similar problem applies in reverse. IMO, anything that helps 'place' the event chronologically, is a useful addition, so I would support this idea whenever the year is likely to be helpful to the reader. Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added three examples from my watchlist, (2017 Westminster attack, 2017 Buckingham Palace incident and 2016 Normandy church attack), where IMO, the titles would be unacceptably vague, without the 'year' addition and in which no obvious alternative name could be used IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If we are to formalize such as a guideline convention perhaps it may be worth considering having such articles place the disambiguator in parenthesis after the main title terms – as is done in so many other cases. I.e. Buckingham Palace incident (2017) rather than 2017 Buckingham Palace incident. With of course exceptions for instances where a date prefix has already been established in common usage. I recognize though that a tendency towards the prefixed form has already drifted into fairly common practice.
 * I think some sort of broader WikiP identity confusion may weave into this regarding NEWS/NOTNEWS ... It seems to me that regardless of long stated ideals regarding such, one might argue that to some extent WikiP has come to be treated as a news source; both by readers seeking current topical updates/summaries/aggregation and by editors seeking to swiftly provide such. Such tension between policy/ideal and practice in such matters seems to me an aspect of context for the title protocol considerations being brought up. Something to keep in mind perhaps. --– A Fellow   Editor  – 13:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical qualifier seems preferable to me, although the reasons are a little fuzzy in my mind. It's something about "it's not part of the COMMONNAME, rather an appendage to it". It softens my COMMONNAME objection and likely would for other editors as well. That is, some editors; some will say that policy precludes "appendages" to the COMMONNAME. Yet another example of the contradictory principles that policy should inform consensus and policy is decided by consensus; a contradiction that seems designed to keep us perpetually chasing our tails. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two types of disambiguation, subject area and topic area. Parenthetical disambiguation (WP:PARENDIS) is topic area, when there is another article with the same name, to . However when the date is part of the title, it disambiguates from any other subject that may have occurred regardless if it has a Wikipedia article. Per WP:CONCISE . This is the type of disambigation we are looking for when using dates, since there may have been other attacks in this town in France before (regardless if there is a WIkipedia article), the subject area needs clarification. -- Green  C  17:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think another factor to consider is how search suggestions and alphanumeric ranking in lists might handle prepend vs. append cases. Consider:
 * 2017 Foo bar


 * 2017 Tom tom


 * 1932 Foo bar


 * ... vs. ...


 * Foo bar (2017)


 * Foo bar (1932)


 * Tom tom (2017)


 * ... for instance.
 * Seems to me that how stuff gets grouped by title will warrant some consideration in this. --– A Fellow   Editor  – 18:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether to have it or not
So far at least, the discussion above seems unanimous that the year should be incorporated into the title, a few noncommittal but no opposition. Andrewa (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Err, At ~7 hrs. in might the term "unanimous" be at risk of coming off as a bit over enthusiastic? Discussion seems to me kinda' brief and sparsely attended as yet. --– A Fellow   Editor  – 17:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not calling it a consensus as yet, and probably won't ever as I'm involved. But the meandering and still mislabeled section above is a but daunting, so I was hoping that anyone who does object would comment explicitly in this section. But instead they created below. Just WP:5P5 in action I guess. (-> Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding, "and still mislabeled" – then fix it. Quote from markup editor (emphasis added):

""
 * I just went for something relatively neutral as I kinda' presumed someone more invested might want to replace it with their own preference. My first impulse was to just repeat the level two heading above it,, as a level three heading as well,  , but I figured the redundancy might irk someone (and complicate linking). , change it to whatever suits you. You're the one who initiated the text below it after all. (p.s.— BTW, apologies for not noticing your comment before now.) --–  A Fellow   Editor  – 00:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would fix it if I could think of how, but in view of the edits made since it was (IMO mis)labelled I haven't a clue. Best I think to take up any relevant points in an appropriately labelled section. Andrewa (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On reflection I've just commented out the heading. Andrewa (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Scope
No edits to clarify the scope of the proposal as yet... did I get that right first shot, or can we improve on it? Andrewa (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Are we looking to actually change anything? Events guidelines already appear to imply that the 'year' addition should be used when it is helpful. It gives as examples 1993 Russian constitutional crisis (Rationale: there are no other "Russian constitutional crisis" articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier as constitutional crises reoccur, and other incidents in Russian history could be construed as a constitutional crisis.) and Chernobyl disaster (an examples of an events that is so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title). I don't think anyone has proposed that ALL events should use the year, simply that editors should be free to add the year whenever 'helpful to the reader' rather than 'when strictly necessary for disambig reasons'. Pincrete (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's controversial, so some would see it as a change and others of a clarification of the existing position. And who cares whether it's a change or a clarification? The point of all guidelines and policies is to save us time by not needing to build a new consensus for each individual case.


 * And that's my objective here. And simply having this discussion may have clarified it as much as we should try to... but I'm not convinced of that. I think it would be good to come to some sort of conclusion.


 * I don't think it matters much which way we go on this. Nobody is suggesting deleting the redirects from the other name, which if we go with the more concise name is a useful search term, and if we go with the more informative name is a primary redirect in all of the cases in question. It's no big deal.


 * But if we have another case of mass bold moves because the guideline is unclear to some, that is a big deal, and IMO avoidable. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This impacts an enormous number of articles
See this diff which says in part I reversed a wholly undiscussed mass-reversal of dozens of articles... When a decision has been made on an article that the year is a helpful identifier, what is this obsession with removing it... (low-level personal attacks removed). Andrewa (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don’t embark on mass renaming. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support no (more) mass renaming until this is settled. (Please don't violate the talk page guidelines regarding bullet points.) Andrewa (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Why treat them differently?
I remain unconvinced that "articles on recent events" (and what exactly qualifies as recent?) should be treated any differently than other articles when it comes to the application of the WP:AT policy (specifically WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE). I dispute the rationale that "the year is helpful to the reader in identifying the article topic".
 * If the common names for these events are not good enough because they supposedly do not identify the topic clearly enough, what could one say about a title such as Omar Mateen? Surely "Thalys train attack" identifies the article topic better than "Omar Mateen" does. Mind you, Mateen too only recently became notable, yet we do not title the article about him Omar Mateen (American mass murderer). Should we?
 * If the intention really were to help the reader identify the article topic, then surely Thalys train mass shooting attempt would be much more helpful than 2015 Thalys train attack, yet this suggestion has gone entirely ignored. Judging by what Andrewa above termed "low-level personal attacks" and the "authorism philosophy" propagated there, it seems that the desire is to retain the year even at the expense of clearer identification, simply because those who support its removal are perceived as unqualified outsiders. Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Omar Mateen is the name of a person and we don't disambiguate people unless there is another article with the same name. Thalys train mass shooting attempt is unnecessarily long, the date only adds 4 characters. It's also common to assign dates to events see 9/11. -- Green  C  17:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It comes to my mind to mention that either (or both) leading and trailing date disambiguators can be implemented as redirects for use during chaotic breaking news cycles while perhaps using something more closely aligned with most other articles as a main title. Thus the benefits to search and linking that might come with date disambiguation would be retained (without having to implement a new specialized format for a subclass of article titles). --– A Fellow   Editor  – 17:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna, as I've said at another discussion, but which you may not have seen, Thalys train mass shooting attempt is completely unacceptable for BLP and NPOV reasons. Last I heard, the accused in that case was still denying that it was anything other than a robbery or that he intended to do anything other than frighten people, and he still hasn't been tried. It is often the case that in the period of greatest interest (the months and years immediately following a crime), it isn't possible to give a title based on "what it appears to be/could well be/press is speculating it is". Pincrete (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm also unconvinced. But it doesn't do a great deal of harm either. My purpose in raising it as a proposal is mainly just to get it out of the way. Decide one way or another, so we can stop wasting time and energy on it. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that I find the year in titles on random events very helpful with regards to identifying the topic and deciding whether to download it. Most often, it is the hovertext information that I’m looking at. In terms of “concise”, which refers to information *density*, the five characters required to append the year, or the seven to paranthetically append the year, is easily justified. It often means other title words can be dropped. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that random use of bullet points is pure rantstyle. Andrewa (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are “convinced”? Without even asking. Rantstyle?  That sounds unkindly intended, which is not your usual style.
 * I have been using this indentation style for longer that I have known you. I think I adopted it sometime after someone ranted at me twice about my use of  .  I thought no it was breaking his browser, or causing his taps to drip through the night, or something. It allows paragraphing with ease, under a single dot point. I find a single dot per post, regardless of paragraphs, improves readability. It especially helps when two people post at the same level to the preceding post. Without outlawed superlarge signatures, mere coloning causes one post to run into their next. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this indentation style consistent with wp:stringing (which reads in part Generally colons and asterisks should not be mixed) or any other guideline/information page/etc? I find it messy and unhelpful, but if there's consensus to use it, fine. But it seems to me that the historical consensus prohibits it, explicitly. Perhaps discuss elsewhere? Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:stringing seems an obscure guideline routinely ignored, so I don’t feel bound by it. It reads like someone’s good ideas, but little more. I would prefer to concentrate on not being messy and unhelpful. Does the asterisk combined with  carriage return codes work better for you. It seems to me to be consistent with wp:stringing, but it produces exactly the same output, but with the disadvantage of no paragraphing in the edit window. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The multi-dots produced by the previous post are your fault, not mine, because you answered my dot pointed post with colon indentation. Maybe you just don’t like dots? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you just don't like following policies and guidelines? (Sigh) You wouldn't be the only one. But agree that those multi-dots are partly my fault. I admit I'm at a loss as to how to best respond to this use of a bullet point on a single comment (rather than in a bulleted list, which is the normal use of a bullet point). It seems to be just a way of emphasizing the point, and they do add extra weight to the comment, but that's perhaps not a good thing, and they sometimes lead to unintelligible messes if others follow the example. I don't like any violation of guidelines, unless there's either a prospect of consensus to change them and/or a benefit to Wikipedia, and I don't think either applies here. But I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the year helpful
From above I dispute the rationale that "the year is helpful to the reader in identifying the article topic". I guess any extra information added to the title is helpful to the reader in identifying the article topic. But we can't put the whole article, or even the whole lead, into the title. So the question is, why is the year of the incident special, and is it special enough to override WP:CONCISE, which mostly works rather well? And I think the onus of proof is clearly on those who say it is special enough. Andrewa (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I became involved with "Thalys train" only to close the RfC on naming. That is one example where editors struggled to find a commonname, those outside France will probably remember it as "that attempted train attack in France where the US soldiers intervened". There probably is no concise memorable name which would satisfy a global readership. A few examples (from my watchlist) which IMO would be impossibly vague without the year are 2017 Westminster attack, now Westminster has been attacked innumerable times in the last 1000+ years, some terrorist, some wartime, some ... whatever. It so happens that none of those events has been given the commonname "Westminster attack", but how does the reader know that, or know that it is not an obscure chess strategy? Similarly 2016 Normandy church attack, refers to the murder of a priest at Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray last year. Editors decided that few outside France would remember the village name, but does 'Normandy church attack' refer to a recent event, an incident in WWII or something in the 1000+ year history of Normandy? There are many other similar 'event' articles on my watchlist, that I would defy anyone to identify in 10 years time without the minor 'memory nudge' which the year gives. Year does not identify, but it does help one to look in the right millenium, century and decade of one's memory. The underlying problem - as someone else remarked - is that we are writing 'news' articles - which IMO have not had time to actually acquire a commonname, we are therefore having to invent clear, neutral identifiers. Pincrete (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see extensive involvement by yourself at Talk:2015 Thalys train attack, but I'm not sure what you mean by to close the RfC on naming. The RfC was closed, but the closure was subsequently (and unsuccessfully) disputed by yourself, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to an earlier rename RfC (in the weeks/months immediately following the event) - ie which led to the year - event format. Closing+ executing the rename was my first involvement, though yes, it has been on my watchlist ever since. The RfC you link to had nothing to do with the article title. Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That RM is archived at Talk:2015 Thalys train attack/Archive 1 if anyone else is interested. I'd have called it an RM rather than an RfC, hence my confusion. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is one reason we have redirects. And if the concise, unambiguous name is never used explicitly in sources, there might be a case for having the extended common name as the article name, such as by adding the date. But that isn't the case with any of the examples yet given. Andrewa (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The "concise unambiguous name" (ie without year) is often more commonly used than with the year addition, but that is because the articles we are typically talking about are reliant on news coverage written in the days and weeks immediately following a high profile 'news' event (why would they add year when 'last week/month' or 'in April' are clearer at the time?). Thus typical ways of establishing what is most commonname (google hits), are skewed towards the news coverage in the immediate aftermath of the event. I think we need to recognise that these events don't actually have an established 'commonname' in the sense that that term is used on WP, but that the article titles frequently are titled according to WP:NDESC. Pincrete (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent expression of your opinion. Are others happy to go with this? Andrewa (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Form of disambiguation
Perhaps this is putting the cart before the horse, but in the above there's much discussion of this. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Year before the description
This is a form of natural disambiguation and the form of all the examples listed in the proposal so far, which is why I proposed that form. Does anyone want to speak in its favour here? Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It matches natural use, and suits wikilinking. Eg. Following the 2015 Thalys train attack the media increased coverage of national security issues. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "... and suits wikilinking." – As would similarly titled redirect pages. --– A Fellow   Editor  – 12:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is preferred and natural method. It identifies the "subject area" per policy WP:CONCISE, it helps to  of the article. For example, if I know of other attacks in a city, which have no Wikipedia articles, I need help to identify which attack this article is about because I am  (ie. attacks in this city or terror attacks in general) and the title should help me .  --  Green  C  14:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Are others happy to go with this? Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation
This is suggested above as the preferred alternative of some. Does anyone want to support it here, and/or give examples of where it's already in use? Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical has become a Wikipedia obsession. It can be considered ed a workaround for subtitling, but is very strongly associated with disambiguations, so much so that many editors will instinctively assume that’s its only purpose. For this reason, I don’t prefer it. Also, it requires seven characters, whereas the leading year adds only five. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought the core argument for adding such dates to titles (whether leading or trailing) was to make them more distinct from other stuff similarly named – either existing or potentially arising? I.e. to disambiguate * them to some degree.
 * Also, please consider how leading dates may affect ordering and how such might figure into one's calsulus.
 * * [sidenote: I'm feeling that the word "disambiguation" might be getting burdened by some parsing tension between common general English usage and specified connotations picked up as 'term-of-art' in Wikipedia editor usage. Trying to consider both.]
 * --– A Fellow   Editor  – 12:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * disambiguation seems entirely consistent with our usage, although there is a sense in which it has also become jargon eg wp:disambiguation page. Andrewa (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The parenthetical method is not preferred because that method is used to disambiguate from other Wikipedia articles only generally. The date here is used for reasons explained in WP:CONCISE, to. "Subject area" includes all terror attacks not just those with a Wikipedia article. -- Green  C  15:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "The parenthetical method is not preferred because that method is used to disambiguate from other Wikipedia articles only." – says . Is there any established community consensus stating that parenthesis may "only" be used in titles when another article already exists with the same name? I so, please quote and link to it. I.e. 'citation needed'. --– A Fellow   Editor  – 16:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally that is what parenthetical means. It also carries over to bot tools and templates which interpret the trailing parenthesis as being a disambiguation and not part of the title itself. They will strip off the trailing parenthetical when needing to determine the core article title. -- Green  C  16:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Generally that is what parenthetical means." – Huh? What, specifically, is? I'm having difficulty interpreting that as a response to my request that you back up your assertion.
 * As to bot tools and templates ... I can see value in giving some thought to how such—as currently implemented—handle various title formats. Though I don't necessarily see any decisive factor in it as yet. Presumably they would only trim the trailing parenthetical off from the displayed text, right? The links they present will still target the correct page (with its distinguishing parenthetical in place in the title). And if they're piping from the actual title—and not a redirect—the disambiguated title will still show as hover text. So something to consider but not a 'deal breaker' in-and-of itself, IMO.
 * BTW, FWIW, I'd be fine with having a trailing date after a comma rather than in parenthesis – which might address bot/template automation concerns. It's having the qualifying follow rather than lead that seems preferable to me in most cases (unless of course there's a clear common usage/common name otherwise established in sources). Somewheresville potluck incident, 2017 rather than, 2017 Somewheresville potluck incident. I guess a possibility of Potluck incident, Somewheresville, 2017 arises as well depending on context. But taken to such a level I can start to see how 2017 Somewheresville potluck incident might appear more streamlined in comparison. --– A Fellow   Editor  – 19:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry it was not more clear, replace "only" with "generally" (done). It's in the policy on disambiguation which largely concerns topic area disambiguation (vs. subject area covered on CONCISE). -- Green  C  03:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Other forms
Just for completeness. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * eg Thalys train attack, mmxv. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ^^^ Ha! (made me smile, SmokeyJoe; tnx) --– A Fellow   Editor  – 12:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thalys train attack of 2015
 * Late contender. Put the subject first. Avoid both parentheses and commas. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal status
We can't call a consensus to adopt his proposal or a variation of it on the discussion to date, IMO. (But I'm involved of course.)

Ways forward:
 * Develop the proposal further.
 * Propose it formally by an RfC.
 * Forget about it and follow the existing guidelines (which IMO means removing dates not needed for disambiguation, leaving redirects of course).

Comments? Preferred way forward? Other options I haven't listed? Andrewa (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As I keep saying, WP:CONCISE says - "subject area" is all terror events not just those with a Wikipedia article. The date is useful for that purpose. There are two types of disambiguation, between other articles (you are right not needed) and between "subject area" where it is often needed. --  Green  C  15:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I begin to understand I think. There may be some ambiguity in the guideline itself. It has generally been interpreted to mean just the first sort... WP:DAB reads in part Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. But you're saying that there are other circumstances in which it may not be required but is helpful. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A good analogy was made by someone else in one of the related discussions whereby US place names always include the state, even when the place name is unique. I think some of the rest of our naming habits are also unhelpful eg Westminster attack would be much clearer, but longer, as Westminster terrorist attack, as would many similar articles. One of the reasons this happens I think, is that often it isn't possible to characterise an event immediately. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "One of the reasons this happens I think, is that often it isn't possible to characterise an event immediately." – I was just having similar thoughts ... I'd probably be 'ok' with even the leading year form (that already seems to have gained some popularity in practice) if somewhere in relevant guidelines it was explicitly stated that such may later be considered to have been a 'placeholder'– not able to make claims of primacy and status quo if a move to a new title gets proposed—perhaps one inspired by the public-at-large (as as indicated in more recent sources) eventually settling on a relatively consistent common name. --– A Fellow   Editor  – 00:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree and WP:NAMECHANGES already handles this to some extent, particularly if we word the proposed new guideline with it in mind. I'm both flattered and disappointed that there has been so little editing of my proposal so far. Surely we can collaboratively improve on it? Andrewa (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly it's unclear there should be policy as the current method of using RMs works. What should be regulated is no mass bold moving, which is already regulated per WP:RM which states controversial moves should be discussed first. The evidence for controversy is strong :) Perhaps this should be an essay to that effect, including links to older RMs and maybe summarize various arguments either way. This gives editors maximum freedom on a per article basis, and creates a hurdle for users trying to mass move to the "right" name. I won't oppose continued work on a policy, but not yet convinced there should be regulation. -- Green  C  14:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let us see where it leads. Early days yet. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Progress
Let me suggest that there are a few things that we should agree on... at a sort of meta level. With me so far? Are those statements all clear and agreed? Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We currently have 20 examples, 17 with dates in the titles and three without.
 * All of them are currently controversial.
 * Some editors strongly support removing the year from all of them.
 * Other editors strongly support adding the year to all of them.


 * In addition, some editors don't believe there is a one size fit all solution. As some editors have said in the RMs, it's the obscure events that benefit from dates while the more famous events are less so because they are recognizable enough without a date. Where that line is crossed, between famous and obscure, is a matter of opinion... -- Green  C  15:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. And some perhaps all of these editors would have strong opinions opposing both of these one size fits all solutions. (I might even be one of them.)
 * Can you be more specific?
 * Are any of the 20 examples we have obscure events?
 * Are any of them not obscure?
 * Are there other examples that we should add to the lists, to help avoid simplistic solutions that fit the cases we have but inappropriate for scenarios we might otherwise have overlooked?
 * But a very good point. Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Impact on the reader
What puzzles me about this is, the impact on the reader seems minimal if that. Whichever article title we choose, there will be a redirect from the other. There's no suggestion of POV, undue weight, original research, COPYVIO, BLP violations, or any of the other sins that we rightly take very seriously.

The only significant impact of this is that it distracts editors from improving articles and other more productive pursuits. Our time is a limited and precious resource. This then in turn impacts the reader of course.

Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Time-wasting is an argument either way. Articles won't have redirects if the custom of 'year-naming' is dropped, or disapproved of. Pincrete (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don’t get what the interest is with redirects. Wikilinking should not be through redirects but through piping. Redirects do little for searching. The Wikipedia search engine improved past that need ten years ago. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This contradicts MOS:REDIR. There are reasons to pipe, and reasons to use redirects, according to circumstances. So is there any policy or guideline that supports your sweeping claim that  Wikilinking should not be through redirects but through piping?
 * Contradicts MOS:REDIR?? What are you talking about?  Nonsense?  MOS:REDIR says nothing of substance that can be contradicted. Linking though piping allows for hovertext to indicate the linked page. Linking to redirects creates hovertext misinformation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One of us is missing something here. MOS:REDIR currently reads in part Let's assume for example you needed to link "poodle", and there was no article for poodles yet. You might want to create a redirect from "poodle" to "dog" as follows... The result should be: #REDIRECT Dog... The advantage of redirects over piped links is... (my emphasis, and ... of course indicates text I've omitted for brevity). Do you really think that's compatible with your view that Wikilinking should not be through redirects but through piping (my ermphasis again)? There is a place for both, and the MOS quite clearly assumes this, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That advantage of redirects over piped links is an old hack for finding wanted articles. I don;t think it is of much value any more.  It has the disadvantage of misleading a reader/editor as to what article is being linked.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's progress. At least you've now read the guideline! Andrewa (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I read it the first time you linked. An obscure MOS guideline on redirects, I admit I don't think I had ever read it before.  Having read it, I can't see its value.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You read the guideline, and still didn't see its relevance? You dismissed as nonsense my citing it, but in fact that just means that in your personal opinion the official en:Wikipedia MOS is obscure, and you don't see its value? That is at least consistent with your interpretation of the use of bullet points... It matters not what the guidelines say. I know we have an IAR policy, but... Andrewa (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And your search results are a puzzle. When I search on Thalys one of the list is Thalys attack (and if we create Thalys attack, 2015 as I think we should, then I expect that would come up too). Similarly when I search on 2015 Thalys one the hits is 2015 Thalys attack. What do you get? Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not? Is there any policy or guideline to prevent their creation? If they're a likely search term, there would be no case for deletion, so it would seem rather illogical. Andrewa (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I think these contributions may explain a lot. If these redirects were in any way discouraged, then both sides would have a point, because it would then matter a great deal which name we chose.

But IMO policy and guidelines should and do encourage their creation. That's one reason I say, no big issue.

It seems to be a common misconception that redirs are some sort of problem. I regularly see baseless requests to suppress the redir in RM discussions. That's one very good reason we don't let all users suppress redirect creation. Andrewa (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don’t follow your lines of thinking. Why are you makin oblique references to my posts? Redirects are cheap. I don’t know what you’re talking about about suppression of redirects. I doubt that redirects are relevant to these discussions on this talk page and invite you to explain. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that redirects are cheap. This is one reason that suppression of redirects is restricted, and deletion of redirects discouraged in most cases. I'm certainly not trying to make oblique references to your posts or anyone else's. I think I follow your line of thinking, but I also think I see some gaps in your logic. Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I had explained it, but since you invite it maybe I should try again. Redirects are relevant because, in the cases we're discussing, they should always exist, and this blows many of the arguments that readers are somehow disadvantaged by our choice of title right out of the water. There is no problem to solve so far as reader experience goes. However, many editors (such as yourself) seem unaware that these redirects should exist and should be used. Andrewa (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, I’m afraid I completely don’t understand. What do redirects have to do with the reader experience? I have often listed several uses of redirects when arguing a page should not be deleted but converted to a redirect, but none of the relate to “reader experience”.  Can you give an example? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Where to start... Redirects are used by readers, that's why we have them. With me so far?
 * Alternatively (no, perhaps as well), may I ask what these several uses of redirects that don't affect reader experience? I'm fascinated. Andrewa (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of redirects being knowingly used by readers. Redirects are supposed to be seemless for readers.
 * Several uses of redirects that don't affect readers include: Allows the history, trivial or not, to be kept; points the original authors to the current location of the page; keeps external bookmarks, such as the authors browser bookmarks, working; allows page moves and merges/smerges/redirects to be managed without consuming administrator time unnecessarily, per policy (WP:ATD). NB while I question the value of redirects to a discussion on the usefulness of dates in titles, I am not anti-redirects.  Having read MOS:REDIR, and its history, I still think that usually a wikilink should go directly to the page intended, firstly so that the hoverlink is correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that Redirects are supposed to be seemless for readers. (Spelling not corrected.) But they're still part of the reader experience, and help them to find the information they want. Don't they?
 * Thanks for that list. Agree with that too. Interesting. Andrewa (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seemless? I think the word is seamless.  Please feel encouraged to correct my spelling if so inclined.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Thanks, sometimes I do. Andrewa (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * sidenote: FWIW, the interleaving above (fragmenting of another's comment with interstitial sub-responses out of timestamp order) reminds me of why I so, so, strongly prefer to see folks just give a referential quote instead (e.g. ".. regarding "Blah bla bla ...", etc., ...") in their own separate following comment, if needed for clarity. While I imagine it may seem cohesive to two editors whose minds were involved in a direct exchange while forming such, I find it obfuscating (or at least awkward) for third-parties like myself to come by and parse it after-the-fact. --– A Fellow   Editor  – 14:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is another unresolved and current controversy. For my part, I find your use of a single asterisk (rather than as part of a bulletted list, which is I think its proper use) both unhelpful and contrary to guidelines. But many editors do it and strongly defend their right to do so. It may be a right brain/left brain thing, or indicate some similar variation in the way we're thinking. Wikipedia is a collaboration, and studies tend to show that various ways of thinking in a team enhance its effectiveness, so this is probably a good thing. But it can be annoying! To me too! Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:A Fellow Editor, I shall try hard to not interleave again. I usually don't.  Even if I copy their signature, it has made others grumpy before.  Sometimes it happens by accident on a phone, when the edit window is very small.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about this edit? Hardly a hanging offence, in fact personally I think that it was by far the best and clearest way to reply (and it's my comment that was split)! But as of 6 November the guidelines discourage such interleaving, and while I personally find this particular guideline phrase not useful (and possibly even obscure) (-> I agree that we should at least try to follow it. Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While I imagine it may seem cohesive to two editors whose minds were involved in a direct exchange while forming such, ... – Face-wink.svg – Andrewa, you'd of course be one of 'the two' in this case ... Having authored the original text you presumably have it 'cached' to some extent in your memory (i.e. you already have a sense of what comes after the inserted break; whereas a person coming in third-party-after-the-fact like myself—having only ever encountered the passage in fragmented form—may need to do some mental compositing to regain a contextual sense of a continuous original. Not such a big hurdle in the single instance above, but in cases where such 'takes off' as a precedent and multiple users dive into multiple breaks in a longer original ... parsing can become almost insurmountable to those coming by later not privy to having watched such broken dialog develop 'in real time'. –A Fellow Editor– 19:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. I find it far easier to follow even multiply-interleaved conversations coming in cold, so long as the conventions are followed... indent using colons, use the asterix only for bulleted lists, sign your posts, etc. They are to me a logic tree and I'm very comfortable with it, and the signature bot has no trouble correctly parsing the conversations either. On the other hand, if everyone were to use TQ, for the same conversation, it would become far longer and IMO hard to follow the threads. But they rarely grow as large, and IMO this is a result of the more cumbersome stringing. In this way, discouraging interleaving discourages discussion IMO. (But maybe that's not always a bad thing.)
 * I'm comfortable for people to have the option of using TQ of course... I do it myself when appropriate, but more often use a similar technique by just italicising the quoted text and linking to the diff. I think that should be an option too.
 * When I find time I might write a user essay on how I ideally like stringing to work, and link to it from my sig. A sort of opt-in to invite people to interleave by breaking my signed comments in the way the bot and I both understand. Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I for one would like that. (I mostly like most of your essays). I hope you don’t just write what we should do, but why it is a good idea. Unlike many guidelines’ style. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I like that, especially the mostly and most. If Wikipedia were written by andrewa-clones it would be a boring and probably dangerously inaccurate place. That's why andrewpedia is on hold. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Reboot impact on the reader
The impact on the reader is largely on other pages, the reader is reading another page that includes a wikilink to the event page. At the other page, the wikilink may or may not be piped, but hoverlinking allows the reader to review the full title of the page before deciding to download it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a reason to pipe, and if the longer title is used, improves reader experience, as has been noted above (several times). But it's not the full story, and IMO editors should be allowed to use their own judgement as to which is preferable, case by case, as now. Andrewa (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m all for empowering editor judgement, and with an authorist bias! —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then assuming others don't oppose this, the existence of these redirects will continue to enhance reader experience, as suggested by current guidelines and procedures.
 * Which brings us back to my initial thesis... which of the titles we choose (with or without year, and which year format) when the shorter title is unambiguous has little if any direct effect on reader experience. The other title (in some form) should in all these cases be present as a redirect, and there is nothing stopping the creation of these, nor anything suggesting or authorising their deletion. And these redirects take the reader seamlessly to the article. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Precedents
A good analogy was made by someone else in one of the related discussions whereby US place names always include the state, even when the place name is unique., can you link to that related discussion? I included that very point in my second still stuby draft of the proposal thinking I was being original. If others have already expressed the same view, that increases our chance of consensus on this a great deal, IMO.

Are there other precedents? Thinking caps on, everyone. Andrewa (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, Derrr, I don't remember where I read it, there have been 3 or 4 related discussions recently. It might even have been your draft and I was too daft to remember! Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I've been watching them all, so I feared as much... I know the feeling. But the point is well made that there are consensus-supported precedents for being flexible because WP:CONCISE doesn't bring the best reader experience, and that's important, and maybe I should have emphasised it more than I did. And I doubt that they're all US place names, and it would be really good to find others. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Examples
We've now had added some examples of recent removal of the date: but these all seem to be bold, undiscussed moves.
 * 00:23, 21 November 2017‎ Surtsicna (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (24,335 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Surtsicna moved page 2016 Würzburg train attack to Würzburg train attack: unique event, no need for disambiguation (WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE))
 * 10:19, 21 November 2017‎ Surtsicna (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (17,642 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Surtsicna moved page 2015 Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack to Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack over redirect: restoring original title; no need for disambiguation (WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE))
 * 00:09, 21 November 2017‎ Surtsicna (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (7,241 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Surtsicna moved page 2016 Wilkinsburg shooting to Wilkinsburg shooting: unique event, no need for disambiguation (WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE))

It means that we now have examples of current article titles both with and without the date.

Are there any examples of RM results one way or another? Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah sure there are RMs that go the other way, from no date to date.
 * Talk:2017_Chicago_torture_incident
 * Talk:2017_Fresno_shootings
 * In general, there is no clear consensus .. the consensus is "it's controversial". Controversial moves are supposed to have RMs per WP:RM ie. no bold moves. I explained this to Surtsicna who has ceased making mass bold moves. In a way, this solves the problem - deal with it page by page via RM discussion and no mass moving. -- Green  C  14:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There was an RM that removed the year from Caracas helicopter incident (although that was not the only change involved in the RM). There have been others, but I don't remember the topics. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If the year is included, it should be at the end, not the beginning
A few years from now, when someone is looking for information about the "2016 Hamburg stabbing attack", they are much more likely to want to type "Hamburg stabbing" in the search box than "2016", since they probably won't remember exactly which year it happened in. Currently, typing "Hamburg stabbing" in the search box doesn't produce any autocomplete suggestions. Also, it is much easier to select the correct topic in a list of articles about Hamburg stabbings than in a list of articles about things that happened in 2016, because a lot more notable things happened in 2016 than the number of notable Hamburg stabbings in various years. Disambiguators (e.g., the name of a state or country that disambiguates a city name, such as Boston, Alabama, or Boston, South Australia) should generally go at the end, not the beginning. So the article should be at Hamburg stabbing attack of 2016, not 2016 Hamburg stabbing attack. This also eliminates the annoyance of the comma that should follow the year for an MDY date that isn't at the end of the title (see MOS:COMMA and MOS:DATEFORMAT). See also Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 1880, Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011, and Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006, and Naming conventions (events). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Very good point. Andrewa (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you are slightly presuming that readers are always looking for something specific. As a reader, I'm an incorrigible wanderer, I come here looking for something specific, but then find myself wandering, it is often profoundly annoying to me personally to see an article title that has a name which gives little indication of the subject, so I would end up having to go to the example you give if it simply said "Hamburg stabbing" or "Hamburg attack" simply to work out what century the topic was set in. Adding the year doesn't solve such ambiguities, but it does give me a cat-in-hell's chance of recognising the topic area. Pincrete (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm assuming that readers are sometimes looking for something specific. These readers matter too! (->
 * And I can't see why you would find anything in profoundly annoying. I guess we could similarly say that it's (slightly) annoying to someone who doesn't know that Madrid is n't in Spain that we don't call that article Madrid, Spain, but where does that end? We can't put the whole text of the article in the title! (And what a waste of search engines it would be if we did.)
 * And all, please note the redirect from Madrid, Spain. It's harmless, useful, and entirely conforms to every guideline and policy. And words really fail me that some don't seem to have been aware of this. Andrewa (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Even I have sometimes been looking for something specific! At the risk of repeating myself, total title clarity is impossible, but anything which helps is desirable. Pincrete (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At the risk of saying the obvious, we all know that you think that. Andrewa (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. I am leaning to agree. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Version 2.0
I've completely rewritten the nutshell following discussion above.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that the nutshell is far too long, most of its content should be moved into the proposal if it meets with general approval. It's a quick and dirty for discussion! Andrewa (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Andrewa (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A similar situation exists with regard to US place names, which are disambiguated by state name even if unambiguous (except for a few of the most well-known cities). - I've removed this clause. Although I wrote it originally, it doesn't seem necessary any more. But, you made a good edit to it, and , you liked it a lot. Feel free to reinstate it. Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirects and the search box behavior
When I type something in the search box, it doesn't seem to include redirects in the list of candidate name suggestions unless I have typed in enough characters to make redirects the only thing that matches the string or unless I have typed in the whole string that is an exact match for the redirect name. For example, if I type "hurrican" or "obam", it doesn't show Hurricane or Obama in the list until I have typed in that entire word. Instead it shows me only a list of specific named hurricanes or actual longer article titles that begin with "Obama". If I type in "2017 car", it does not show me the candidate name 2017 Caracas helicopter attack until I type in another character to eliminate all possible exact article title matches. Instead it shows me only other things that are the names of articles, like 2017 Carolina Panthers season and 2017 Caribbean Cup qualification.

This contradicts the assertion that was in the proposed guideline that said there is "no negative impact on the reader whatsoever" as long as redirects exist. The search box is prioritizing article names over redirect names in a way that impacts the reader.

—BarrelProof (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point. That's possibly not optimum behaviour on the part of the search box, but for now I guess we have to live with it. I wonder why it's done that way, and even whether it's deliberate? Andrewa (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am, in principle, opposed to giving much weight to search box auto suggest behaviour, as that behaviour is crude, developing, and prone to change. Developers working on search box auto suggest should adjust its behaviour to make it suit titles, or content, not editors adjust titles to suit the behaviour. That noted, noting the low weight of argument I want it assigned, it is a good point. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also a good point! The more I think of that search box behaviour, the less I like it. Andrewa (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ready for RfC?
I think this should go to a formal RfC, so responders to technical RMs and bold moves have it for guidance.

Are we ready for that? Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Not quite it seems, lots of good stuff just added thanks. Any others? Are we getting close? Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kudos. I somewhat wonder whether this effort should be devoted to refinement of WP:NCE instead of another guideline page. Perhaps it could also end up as an essay rather than a guideline. I'm not sure it says very much that isn't already covered in some form in other places like WP:TITLE and WP:NCE. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An essay would not carry enough weight to be useful in reducing the time spent on the foreshadowed mass move requests.
 * But more important, yes, some editors are strongly of the opinion that it's already covered in some form in other places. But we have no consensus on this.
 * Incorporating it into WP:NCE would be an option, certainly. Should we discuss that as a possibility here first, or raise it at wt:Naming conventions (events)? Andrewa (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, I think the summary of considerations on this main page, is excellent. My one quibble would be with the 'Nutshell' wording: Don't propose that dates be added to existing article names on recent events, or removed. That's unless either the name is ambiguous without the date, or you have good reason to reopen the discussion!.


 * I've bolded a suggested change, since - as I understand the intention - we are trying to discourage time-wasting general adding or removing of 'year', not to discourage/encourage "use of year" when the article is first created, when discussion as to whether it is helpful is perfectly valid. Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Done. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Should something be linked to WP:RM which concerns not doing bold moves when it might be controversial. Since this is a controversial area (first sentence "no consensus") bold moves should be discouraged (per WP:RM). It would slow down crusaders doing mass moves to the "right" title. I've added some text and please feel free to modify. -- Green  C  19:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks good. But the page is growing... we need to be as concise as possible. It's useless writing things unless people read them! Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole last paragraph could be condensed and simplified but my brain is not up to the task right now. It's certainly wordy. -- Green  C  23:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But it's a balance, and the whole thing has grown. And while each increment may have seemed a good idea at the time, I'm not convinced we've improved overall on this version.
 * The redlink should be corrected by pointing to wp:hovertext instead of to the main namespace (we need coverage in some article but won't get it soon I suspect), and the first paragraph claim of no negative impact whatsoever removed (no significant negative impact remains my view, but we're probably not going to get consensus even on that).
 * What else was essential to fix? And/or, can we fix it more succinctly? Andrewa (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Heads up
See this post to the relevant naming convention talk page. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)