Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)/Archive 1

Initial discussion
Under what circumstances should the first word of a title be The?

It seems right for things like pop-groups eg The Who, but what about other organisations?

eg should it be Highland Light Infantry or The Highland Light Infantry?

Jeff Knaggs 16:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Commonwealth regiments are tricky. Most titles officially contain The, but some do not, and there's no fool-proof method of predicting. See Land Force Central Area for some examples.  You should find an authoritative source, name the article accordingly, and make the alternative name a redirect.  That's easier said than done, though, because "authoritative sources" differ: I'm still trying to figure out if it's "The Irish Regiment of Canada" or "Irish Regiment of Canada". Indefatigable 17:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd say Highland Light Infantry. "The" should only really be included when (a) you'd want to have it shown as linked in the text of an article and (b) it would be capitalised in running text. I'd definitely want to say someone served in the Highland Light Infantry rather than that they served in The Highland Light Infantry, and it'd be more natural to write about the Highland Light Infantry than about The Highland Light Infantry. Proteus (Talk) 17:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree - and think that if The is part of the proper name, it should be included (such as your The Who example). -Visorstuff 18:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I added a case for "proper names", which for groups like The Beatles or The Who did not seem covered by "official" names. I also added The College of Wooster and The Pennsylvania State University, which may be debatable, especially with Penn State, as using the "official" name may conflict with the guideline of using the most common name. But that is what those articles are named (and both institutions are particular about the usage, as are others such as The Ohio State University). older &ne; wiser 15:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * I merged "proper names" into "official names", as the examples you cite, such as "The Who", are official names; check on their website, for example.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   14:25, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * They shouldn't be there. Many organisations have the definite article as part of their proper name, but we don't want to include it in their article title. If we did, we'd end up with The United Kingdom, The University of Cambridge, The Official Monster Raving Loony Party, The House of Commons, and so on. The real reason The Who should be there is that it's only one word in addition to the definite article - it's the same reason that my style guide recommends writing about The Times but the Daily Mail. Such things are often unidentifiable without the definite article (and we could hardly call The Who's article "Who"), but no one is going to say "Ohio State University, what's that? Oh, they mean The Ohio State University!". Proteus (Talk)


 * I'm still undecided about such cases, but I might point out regarding your examples that as far as I can tell "The University of Cambridge" is not officially known by that name -- its web site gives no such indication and refers to it variously as the "University of Cambridge" or "Cambridge University". Also, if we were to go by "official" names, wouldn't it be something like "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? A quick glance through UK government web sites (and the UN, CIA World Fact Book, and U.S. Embassy to the UK) showed the definite article was rarely used as a part of the name (the one I saw where it was prominent was the Parliment site--where it referred to itself as "The United Kingdom Parliament", in which it is unclear whether the "The" is attached only to "United Kingdom" or to the entire construct), and the most common reference was simply "United Kingdom" or "UK". Somewhat similarly, with "The House of Commons", the "The" is only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or when the phrase stands alone as in a heading. There is no indication that the article is a part of the official name--only that it is customary to use the definite article with the House of Commons. Similarly, the "Daily Mail" does not refer to itself as "The Daily Mail", as does The Times (or for that matter The New York Times, The Daily Mirror, The Independent', The Daily Telegraph, etc.). Similarly, The Ohio State University and The College of Wooster also explicitly use the capitalized "The" as part of the name (although both also use shorter forms as well). But after all that, I'd really not have too much of a problem with naming the articles Ohio State University and Pennsylvania State University on the basis of common usage. I'd be a bit less comfortable with renaming The College of Wooster or The Nature Conservancy, but even there the definite article may be more a sort of vanity than an essential qualifier or a reflection of common usage. I suspect there are many such cases where the definite article is a part of the official corporate name and where it may have filtered into common usage as well (and hence into the naming of Wikipedia articles). Which is more recognizable: The Daily Telegraph or the Daily Telegraph; The New York Times or the New York Times''? I'd say both forms are pretty equally recognizable. I don't think the article is necessary for disambiguation, but has penetrated into common usage, although perhaps not universally. In cases where common usage does not clearly favor one form, should we give preference to the official name? older &ne; wiser 15:24, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * "but even there the definite article may be more a sort of vanity than an essential qualifier or a reflection of common usage" - that's my problem with all of them. Given that the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia have no article at the beginning of the name, I believe we need a very good reason to put one in any article title. Newspapers regularly have capitalised definite articles in text, and it's obviously common sense to put them there when they're in the titles of books, but to put them there simply because the institution concerned has decided that it deserves a capitalised definite article is just unhelpful to the user (and makes us look inconsistent). I'd rather we had a consistent and obvious policy that will be helpful to both editors and users - "Definite and indefinite articles are not to be used at the beginnning of article titles except in the following cases:" (with "the following cases" cases being newspapers, books, and any other thing that I've forgotten). Proteus (Talk) 18:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Universities
I am removing The College of Wooster and The Pennsylvania State University as examples, because on Wikipedia, it seems we clearly don't usually use the article "the" for universities. Otherwise, we'd have "the" in front of the following titles, as evidenced by their official title on their website:


 * Ohio State University
 * University of Arizona
 * University of Chicago
 * University of Oklahoma
 * University of New Mexico
 * University of South Dakota
 * University of Texas at Austin
 * University of Tulsa
 * University of Vermont
 * University of Wisconsin-Madison

Instead, we bow to the most-common-name rule for universities. &mdash;Lowellian (talk)  03:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Of the above list I compiled from random searching of states with universities that officially use "the", The Ohio State University is the only one located at an article preceded by a "the" in Wikipedia. &mdash;Lowellian (talk)  03:42, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I would vote that we respect the names of the schools as they choose them. For example, we wouldn't rename Harvard Law School, "Harvard University School of Law" to satisfy some arbitrary desire for uniformity. Therefore, I propose the standard be that we list a university under its official name (e.g. The Ohio State University, The George Washingtion University). --Gopple 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Using "The" is one issue, but preferring "official names" over common names can cause trouble; see recent events at Naming conventions (schools). Melchoir 20:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Gopple that we should "respect the names of the schools as they choose them" rather than universal "standards", as no justification has been given as to why the school's desired name should not be used. - ChrisKennedy 02:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Melchoir 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think ChrisKennedy is saying that we should use the schools official names with respect to the article "The". Using the official name should trump the desire to have all university names consistently formmatted.  If I am interpreting his comment correctly, then I agree with him that we should use "The" in our article-name if "The" is in the official name of the school. Johntex\talk 05:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, guys. I've done some research on the examples here. My concern is not only that the apparent "official name" of a school is often totally divorced from common usage, it is often not even used by the university itself. If you click around UA's website, "the University of Arizona" with a lowercase the is used more often than not (when it doesn't begin a sentence); same with "the University of Chicago", "the University of Oklahoma", "the University of New Mexico", "the University of Vermont", and "the University of Wisconsin". Then on the other hand, "The University of South Dakota" with a capital T is very consistent on their website, while Google mostly favors the; yet "the The University of South Dakota" makes quite a few appearances. Similarly "The University of Texas at Austin", "The Ohio State University", and "The University of Tulsa".

I'm not saying that these data prove that the last four universities' articles should have "The" and the first six shouldn't. My conclusions are:
 * 1) As evidenced by the first six, writers at the univerisites themselves often do not consider "The" to be part of the university's name, but simply a grammatical necessity, so that their seal or page title is a complete noun phrase. (Here at Wikipedia, article titles do not use "The" for this purpose.) In running text, the universities' names begin with "University".
 * 2) Several universities do seem to insist on including "The" in their titles internally. Maybe their websites are policed by editors who thinks it lends them gravitas; who knows. These schools are in the minority among schools with gramatically similar names, and generally, Google shows that their practice is not followed by outside sources.

If anyone wants to move to The University of South Dakota, The Ohio State University, etc., on the grounds of following official usage, I won't complain. (Although the latter does sound silly.) In general, however, I recommend that we be extremely careful about adding "The" to any university article. Webpage titles, seals, and other graphics can be misleading, and "The" should be interpreted as part of the university's name only if there is extraordinary evidence beyond those indicators. Melchoir 08:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. The anti-article faction that currently controls the changes for this type of thing was having none of it. I don't mean they'd prefer to have the status quo control either, they actively sought out to abridge the names of The Ohio State University and The George Washington University for "consistency" reasons--though consistency for consistency sake over "actual"/historical/factual reasoning (which I think is the purpose behind wikipedia, not just pretty lists) is silly...IMHO. Fight the fight, I'd be behind you. Be careful, though. Those who would have it otherwise use a special brand of circular logic which gets its authority from this article, which was written by the same people who claim it hold the authority for their actions. --Gopple 19:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One extra note - for The Ohio State University -- if ANYONE has seen a televised NFL game in the last several years, you will note that EVERY OSU grad anunciates "THE" in The Ohio State University. Just a fun bit of trivia/proof. --Gopple 19:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm actually not fighting that fight. I personally prefer brief, common names, and I wish those universities had never gotten the idea of putting articles in their names. But I admit that sometimes expansion isn't all bad. Melchoir 19:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Lack of concensus on university naming conventions
I am concerned that this discussion did not seem to reach concensus and now it is being quoted as authoritative to rename articles on Requested moves. We should definately have a vote on the use of the definate article "The" at the beginning of the name of Universities.

Additionally there should be a vote on whether to use The as part of the name of something if it is the "official" or "legal name" and the organization has made efforts to include the "The" as part of their name even when in the middle of words provided that
 * a) there is a risk of confusion without the "The" (such as a similarly named but different organiation; or
 * b) there is a history of consistent use of the word "The" (such as "The Citadel"); and that
 * c) the "The" isn't used solely for emphasis or as slang (such as we're talking about "The Yankees")

thoughts? Trödel 02:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to make a comment. The issue has been raised that this page was almost entirely written by me (Lowellian). While it is true that I wrote this page, I did not originate the policy. In writing this policy, what I was doing was explicitly writing down what was already the de facto policy on Wikipedia articles. I didn't place the article for the United States of America at United States; other Wikipedians else did. The vast majority of Wikipedia university articles are located at articles without a "the" at the front (and this is true even when the official name contains a "the"; the common name, omitting the "the," is used instead on the majority of articles); I did not place those university articles there; other Wikipedians did. Even when I personally disagreed with something, as in the case of the discussion of bands above, I went with the de facto standard on Wikipedia over my own personal opinion and added the information about bands to the page. So even though I put this policy down as explicit text, I was not the creator of this policy&mdash;the Wikipedia community was. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 02:33, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the observations, Lowellian. I agree with Trödel, though, that some discussion and former formalisation of this would be worthwhile (and a vote, if it comes to that);  it's far from clear to me when "official name" trumps "common usage" trumps "avoid articles" (or any other such permutation) other than by the specific, often nested, examples and categories of examples, that it's not always evident how to generalise.  Why are university names exceptions to the 'official title' rule, and other instituitions not (or at least, not explicitly so).  Is this intended to stand as an exemplar to be generalised, or a stand-alone special case?  Alai 06:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response Lowellian - can you point us to a history of discussion on this - or did you memorialize what was common practice. Perhaps some reference to Naming Conventions in the wiki namespace (as opposed to this Wikipedia namespace) happened - I will check there also. What I am most concerned about is that some articles were moved to be without the "The" before the organization name in an automated way without comment in Feb 2002 - see the article I am particularly concerned about. However, I also think we should have some concensus on how this is handled.  11:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have renamed the section from "Concensus does not seem to have been reached" to "Lack of concensus on university naming conventions," which I believe is clearer and more specific. I believe this is reasonable but let me know if you disagree. ChrisKennedy 05:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To facilitiate this discussion, I have now moved the Bands section down one slot; it could instead be more appropriate to move it up one slot. -- ChrisKennedy 05:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the official name of a specific university should trump consistency with what other universities choose to call themselves. I have not researched other cases, but I believe in particular that The University of Texas at Austin and The Ohio State University should be at those names, since they are the official names, and they are widely used. Johntex\talk 20:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, my own research from the section above tends to agree for those two cases. Now, time for action. I've posted a proposed new guideline; it's a conservative alteration of the old one, and it should allow UT and OSU to slip through. Please comment and alter! Melchoir 20:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I move to accept Melchoir's proposed naming conventions on Universities. My reasoning is, as it stands, if there are examples where it can be reasonably proven that the definite article should be used, we as wikipedia owe it to ourselves to be correct, rather than to apply our own law upon the particular institution. That being said, the burden of proof for whether or not a particular institution should have the definite article needs to be fairly high. I think the case can be made for "The Ohio State University" and "The University of Texas at Austin", but not too many others. --Analogue Kid 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only assume that since nobody has commented that people have no objections to adopting the revised standards. I'll give it a couple more days and if I don't hear anything I'll go ahead and adopt it.--Analogue Kid 15:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bands
I am of the opinion that The Beatles is misnamed and should be at Beatles, which already redirects to them anyway. Anyone else think so? &mdash;Lowellian (talk)  22:06, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * What do their albums say? Maurreen 05:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe their albums all say The Beatles, but I don't have any to check. The standards at WikiProject Music say to use the band's name, which sometimes does or does not use the article even when it seems appropriate (i.e. the Pixies do not use the article)... it's somewhat confusing, but it depends on common usage and there's a list at the project page of bands that do not use the article. Tuf-Kat 05:57, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * The group is "The Beatles". I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as just "Beatles". Their website makes it clear that the "The" is an integral part of their name. jguk 19:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you would say "I have a lot of Beatles albums" and not "I have a lot of The Beatles albums", but it's the opposite for "The Who". Does that indicate anything? RSpeer 15:08, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Columbia Guide to Standard American English on caps.
In a page-move discussion, someone was good enough to cite: The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.  This is admittedly at variance from current practice, but it'd be a nice simple rule, both here and for capitalisation in general. Would there be a case for adopting this? Or at least, would it be a useful baseline to establish, on which further 'exceptions' can be progressively noted? Alai 02:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As Disambiguation
I would like to suggest that pages be given a "The" at the start of their title if this aids disambiguation. If there are several articles with the same name, but only one that could adequately be described with a definite article, then it should have a "The" regardless of whether it is a title of some work. Here are two examples: The Hulk is preferable to Hulk (comics), and The Shredder is preferable to Shredder (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). Both are currently redirects. -- Supermorff 11:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't very well see your point. If the guideline is applied, it follows from it that the definite article can perfectly be used for disambiguation purposes:
 * The Queen Elisabeth II and Queen Elisabeth II are both pages that exist, both a redirect, but to a different page.
 * The Emperor redirects to a disambig page; Emperor is an article about emperors
 * The Republic redirects to a disambig page; Republic is an article about states with a particular form of government.
 * Saint and The Saint are separate articles. The second is a disambiguation page, but basicly about nothing else than the character created by Leslie Charteris.
 * For "Comics", applying "The" as the first word would imply that the article is about a comics strip (series) or particular movie that is called, for instance, The Incredible Hulk, while Hulk would be an article about the Hulk character across strips and movies. The problem is that both The Hulk and Hulk need disambiguation: the first because there are several "works" that go under that title (at least 2 strip series; movies and television series;...) - The second needs disambiguating while "Hulk" is not only a comics character but also a part of a ship and some other meanings. So "The" before "Hulk" is in itself not assisting in the disambiguation. The technique that could be applied is making Hulk (character) an article with the characteristics and history of this fictional character; then fill Hulk (disambiguation) with all disambiguation content (basicly all what is now on the "Hulk" page + extended with what will be the results of the next steps), add on top of the "Hulk (character)" article a sentence in the sense of :for other uses of "Hulk" or "hulk" see Hulk (disambiguation), and further change the content of The Hulk so that it is about the most obvious work that is called "The Hulk". Also on that page there should be a disambig sentence on top. There's nothing wrong with that (but to me it seems a lot of work for maybe not even much of an improvement, while some wikipedians might contest whether "The" is as much part of the "Hulk" title as for instance "The" is part of The old man and the sea). Applying the "Saint"/"The Saint" model might also work for what you want to do (and that is using "The" as disambiguator)... --Francis Schonken 13:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is that adding a "The" preface can add specificity. In your Republic example, Republic (without "The") is specific, but The Republic is not, and thus requires disambiguation anyway. Same with your Emperor example. For The Saint however, that *specifically* refers to a single character (about which there happens to be several pages).
 * Now, for the Hulk pages, only one page (Hulk (comics)) could potentially be renamed as The Hulk. The Hulk is specific, as is Hulk (comics), though in my opinion the first is more user-friendly. Such a renaming of the page means it is easier to link to in an article without pipe linking or via a redirect, which I believe should be desirable in a title.


 * Yeah, as I said using the "The Saint" model is possible, whether the "The Saint" and/or the "The Hulk" pages are disambiguation pages or "content" pages. This present guideline about "definite and indefinite articles in page name titles" allows that. No need to change this guideline for that. The problem might be at the end of the WikiProject Comics implicit or explicit recommendations. Probably that's where the change of the interpretation of the "definite and indefinite articles" guideline would need to take place.
 * See for example also Naming conventions (common names) which I've been working on this morning. --Francis Schonken 09:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the WikiProject you mentioned - I've never looked at anything regarding it, and don't often edit comic articles anyway. That was really just the only example I could find. In light of what you've said, I'll change my proposal to make it clearer that this is allowed under the present guidelines on the main page, e.g. by adding a section saying that use of the definite article should be permitted if it is a part of a common name, and the name of the article would require a qualifier if the definite article was not included. -- Supermorff 14:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"Generally includes 'the'" cases
There's a couple of example of articles at titles where the "the" is generally included in normal usage, but we don't have a Naming Convention basis to include it. For example The Ashes, The Blitz. This may be related to the above point on disambiguation, in that without the "the", or some other context, it's less clear what precisely is being referred to. (i.e. one can say "an Ashes series", without the "the", and be fairly clear, so it's not precisely integral, but arguably the title "Ashes" is less immediately descriptive.) Anyone else be in favour of adding this as an additional rule of thumb? Alai 03:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Another significant example: The Holocaust.  Alai 04:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the example Blitz, but do agree with the general point and another example which I think is a better example than any of the above is The Crown --Philip Baird Shearer 18:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also a good example. I'm more attached to the principle than to the particular instantiations, which obviously people will have to hash out as best they can in practice anyway, so if we modify the NC along such lines, the best we can do is to choose whatever examples are the clearest and least controversial -- whatever those might happen to be.  Thanks for the comment:  I was beginning to wonder if this would just wither on the vine.  Ideally there'd be some further discussion before knocking out a formal proposal.  Alai 05:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent addition
Hadn't noticed Francis had added a new clause. I think it's a significant improvement, but is unduly focused on the "disambiguation" aspect (which may be what's tripping us up on The Blitz). I think it's preferable to say that if "The [X]" is in principle a different thing from "[X]" (or indeed, [x]) without the article, then it's the better article title in and of itself; that it relieves us of the need for a disambig (or more likely, just displaces it to a "[X] (disambiguation)") page is just a pleasant side-effect. To return to the specific case, "The Blitz" and "a blitz" (to "to blitz") clearly are different; it just happens that the first is notable, and the second is more at the level of a colloquial dicdef, for variously, and to my certain first-hand knowledge, aerial bombardments in general, blitzkriegs in the original sense, inebriation, lots of linebackers trying to pound the little guy with the ball...  I don't, however, argue that any of these are especially encyclopaedic/notable. Incidentally, all of these senses are ultimately derived from "blitzkrieg", regardless of whether some of them are derived from that directly, or via "the (London/UK/1940) Blitz". Alai 01:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Blitz and Blitzkrieg are not directly related. Blitz always refers to the aerial bombardment. One never says the Poland Or France or Russia were Blitzed one says they suffered a Blitzkrieg. Only Britain was Blitzed because the British chose to adopt the word for aerial bombardment by the Germans. Philip Baird Shearer 02:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you won't take my word for the etymology and usage, will you take that of OED, or that of the dictionary already quoted on the article talk page? And more relevantly for this page, do you agree with the suggested principle:  if "X" (or "an X", or "to X", etc, etc) and "the X" are connotationally and referentially different, but "an X" isn't notable, then "the X" is still a better, clearer article title for the latter?  Alai 03:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have some more discussion on this, but since it was added without discussion anyway... I'm going to remove the "separate articles" qualification, unless there are strong objections. Alai 21:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Universities
So far as I can tell, we currently have two contradictory conventions wrt universities, both on the main page. This ought to be resolved, as it is creating confusion (see Talk:The Ohio State University). Personally, I prefer the "no articles" rule (with an exception for institutions like The Citadel), but it should be resolved one way or the other. The current set-up is essentially a complete lack of a naming convention. john k 17:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well one's merely a proposal and the other's the actual naming convention, so if the former is causing confusion (which it certainly is if it's being cited on talk pages as if it's an actual convention) it should just be deleted (presumably being transferred to this talk page). Proteus (Talk) 17:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but as this would also align with my substantive preferences, I'm uncertain. I'd like to hear others' opinions on this. john k 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the big controversy. If the official name of the institution includes an article then the name of the Wikipedia article should include it.  Create the appropriate redirections so readers get bounced to the right article and be done with it.  We have no business "taking sides" in (silly, IMHO) debates or changing the names of organizations.  I'm not sure I see this much differently than other situations where an institution has a common nickname and more rarely used "real" name (see Ole Miss v. The University of Mississippi - which, ironically, seems to suffer from exactly the same issue as being discussed as "The" appears to be part of their name). This issue was recently discussed on American University's Talk page and resolved amicably when an authoritative university source was cited.
 * In brief, who the hell are we to change or decide the name of a legal entity? Create redirects, note nicknames or commonly used misnomers, and be done with it.  --ElKevbo 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always harbored (and voiced) the conviction that the naming conventions suck. Include, too, in that "sucking" most Manual of Style guidelines.  They're wholly ambiguous, often misinterpreted, and downright contradictory.  We're having an argument on the Milton Friedman article about whether we should be lazy and inaccurate and call it the Nobel Prize in Economics (under which the article is named) or by its proper, official name Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. (Someone will probably posit the question that it should be The Sveriges Riksbank Prize...etc.) I can't believe we often have this counter-productive argument pitting correctness versus adhering to the letter of naming conventions.  Laziness or popularity should never be an excuse for inaccuracy.  An excuse for naming redirects, perhaps, but never a justification for inaccuracy with main article titles. Down with the MoS! Down with the Naming Conventions! To the barricades! &mdash;ExplorerCDT 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "official name" is used a lot but it's not always clear what that means. Here in the UK a lot of institutions have a "legal name" in the law/charter/university statutes and a "brand name" for day to day usage. Now, say, "University of Durham", "Durham University" and even "Durham" (in a clear academic context) all mean and refer to the same entity, and examples of all three usages by a formal organisation can even be found in nearly every university, and it's very hard to determine the divide between casual and formal usage (similarly a lot of people casually refer to "Ted Heath" but would never dream of their usage being used as backing for calling him that in a non casual contect) so practically every article on a UK university goes for the corporate branding (and with good measure - my own current institution actively discourages use of the formal name and it looks seriously antiquated to see it). I actually think the current brand name is the form that should be used rather than an archaic formal name (similarly we use "France" not "France") - who are we to impose an archaic form over present formal usage? Timrollpickering 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with Tim's perspective here - we should neither be too pedantic about using the most formal name, nor should we use totally informal names. But exactly where to draw the line remains uncertain. john k 20:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that we should rename articles like Trinity College, Dublin to it's official name of Provost, Fellows and Scholars of the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin (maybe, for consistency, we should, but there is a point crossed by that example, especially since the TCD website refers to its as TCD). It someone refers to themselves as "Ted Heath" professionally, I'd have no problem with the article being known that way.  But if a subject is known professionally or officially one, and if a large number amongst the philistine public give it a popular name another way, the title of the article shouldn't give in to popular pressure just because it's popular.  Redirects of "popular names" should go to official names.  Perhaps would enlighten the philistines to reform their vulgar, incorrect habits.  If something is so to avoid pedantry, obsession, or giving into popular simplicity, but incorrect, it reflects badly on us and Wikipedia as a whole.  The convention to override the naming convention as they are now should be adherence to the most accurate, official form. There's no reason the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel should be known here as Nobel Prize in Economics when the Nobel Foundation refuses to refer to it in that style and explicitly refers to it by the former, the official name.  At least some people are correct around here...titling the article Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress instead of the vulgar Poet Laureate of the United States. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 00:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with the last few comments above, but to return to articles, what about just applying the most common usage rule? Institutions don't get the final word on what they're called (just ask the Nobel Foundation).  Unless the "The" is irremovably fixed in the public consciousness, then it should be removed.  And by irremovably fixed, I mean that if a user is sitting with Google in front of him and he wants to search for the institution, he automatically prepends "The". — mholland 19:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I ran the world (including Wikipedia) then all articles would use the full and legal names of the subject with appropriate redirections from nicknames, familiar names, etc. However, I don't rule the world so it's pretty obvious that the current policy of "use the most familiar name" is likely the best option.  I would, however, lobby very strongly for (a) noting the full, legal name of an institution in the article lead and (b) creating a redirect from the full, legal name.  I think that's a reasonable compromise and one completely in keeping with current Wikipedia practice.  --ElKevbo 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree. It's time to correct the wrongs that naming conventions have perpetuated.  Policy should be shifted so that incorrect, common and popular names redirect to full and legal names, and we should lobby strongly for that. This is just one of the lazy things that gives Wikipedia a bad name. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Without looking above, I'd like you to enter the full, correct legal name of the Nobel Prize in Economics into the search box. I'd be very surprised if you could.  Sometimes the legal name of something just gets cut adrift from usage, even to the point where it is deprecated by an organisation, or in the case of the Nobel Prize in Economics, from the greater part of the world, including textbooks, scientific papers and encyclopaedias.
 * What conclusion would you like us to draw from your argument as specifically applies to this naming convention? Would you lobby for the definite article to be prepended to the title of hundreds of thousands of articles, and for millions of links to be corrected from foo to the foo?
 * Specifically, what is your policy proposal? — mholland 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically: Correct, Legal, and Official names should ALWAYS trump the Naming Convention's demand for "common names". &mdash;ExplorerCDT 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree - "Correct, Legal, and Official names" will produce many article titles that are simply not the name the institution itself currently uses (and some real messes as your Trinity example shows). How about An organisation's official GIVEN form of the name should trump "common names"? Timrollpickering 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On your amended form, I'd completely agree. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. This rewriting of a rule shouldn't just be limited to Universities, but should be applicable in naming an article on any subject where the organization officially gives one name. And it should apply to naming conventions as a whole, not just here for the use of indefinite or definite articles. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've raised this proposal at: Naming conventions (common names). Please feel free to join in there, also. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe we should tend to use the name as used by the institution. Hence, The Citadel and The Ohio State University. Johntex\talk 00:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
What about something like The Langham? How should that be treated? IvoShandor 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers

 * There's currently a debate about moving Morning Post to The Morning Post. Most newspapers' articles seem to include the initial The, but if this is policy it should be explicit.  The Titles of works convention mentions "literary works as well as works in other media, such as film and the visual arts", but I don't think that encompasses newspapers. Are they covered instead under "Official names"?  Perhaps one or other wording should explicitly mention them and give an example. jnestorius(talk) 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the general practice at Wikipedia is to include the articles ("a" and "the") in the name of a Wiki Article whenever the article is a part of the name of the subject written about. I think we should look to the purpose of the two (2) rules in the Chicago Manual of Style. Also, the role that the function DEFAULTSORT plays on Wikipedia cyberspace. So I'm for stating explicitly that if an aricle is a part of the name of the subject written about on Wikipedia, it should also be a part of the name of the Wikipedia article. And whether it's a newspaper, or some other entity, I think makes no difference to the rule. --Ludvikus 02:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I found it (the rule burried in the page) it's quite explicit, though rather poorly stated (in fact, not actually stated, no verb given.):

==When definite and indefinite articles should be used== ===Titles of works=== This applies to literary works as well as works in other media, such as film and the visual arts. Examples: * A Clockwork Orange (film) * "The Lady or the Tiger?" (short story) * The New York Times (newspaper) * The Old Man and the Sea (novella) This only applies if the definite or indefinite article is actually a part of the title of the work. Thus, Mona Lisa is preferred to The Mona Lisa .--Ludvikus 04:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I only quote the rule above from our page - it's not made up by me. --Ludvikus 04:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The example of the NYT makes the rule definite as it applies to The Morning Post - include the definite article. However, it could be stated more directly, and located more obviously on the page. (Rule Quoter:) Ludvikus 04:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What might be helpful would be to clarify the summary at Naming_conventions, where it currently states simply Convention: If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. This would be the case for the title of a work such as a novel. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name. In the case of newspapers, it appears to be a common practice in many style guides to not capitalize the definite article in running text. The summary should include some mention of the first bullet from this page: If the name of the article is not the title of a work, an official name, or another proper name, avoid the definite ("the") and indefinite ("a"/"an") articles at the beginning of a page name. Although, come to look at this more closely, the first two bullets on this page are very difficult to parse -- too many conditionals and negatives. older ≠ wiser 03:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See also Naming conventions (books): the examples (including The Lancet, The Times and The New York Times) show that it is quite common to include the definite article, when it's in the actual title. But, as a counterexample I happen to think of, International Herald Tribune ("The" is not printed on this newspaper's front page). --Francis Schonken 21:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You did not produce a counterexample. On the contrary. Your example show a paper which does not have a preceding "the" in its name. So the Wiki article also omitted it. --Ludvikus 05:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I used the term "counterexample" a bit too liberal I suppose.
 * Anyway, if the list of examples contains non-fiction publications, it is but fair to mention these in the description above that list of examples. So that's what I did. Afaik this solves the issue brought up here about "newspapers". But "newspapers" was too narrow: it also applies to, for example, The Lancet and The Origin of Species (neither of them a newspaper). The term "literary works" (used in the description) might have given the wrong impression that only artistic creations were meant when it comes to books, texts, printed matter and the like. --Francis Schonken 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Titles written in languages that inflect words to include the definite article
I have set up an article entitled Mocăniţă which concerns narrow-guage mountain railways in Romania. It is a Romanian word, and believe that it has no direct equivalent in English. I have used the dictionary form of the word, which is singular and indefinite, as this is in keeping with English Wikipedia naming conventions. I can therefore honestly refer to "a mocăniţă" in my English text. In Romanian, the plural of the word is "mocăniţe" and (due to the language's Latinate morphology) "the mocăniţă" is rendered as "mocăniţa". I believe that using such inflected words would be confusing for readers knowing only the English language. I have therefore spoken of "other mocăniţăs" and "The....mocăniţă", without inflecting the word. However, some of my entries (though not the article's title) were changed (anonymously) to "mocăniţa", i.e. inflected for the definite article. Maybe this was done because this is the title of the corresponding article in the Romanian Wikipedia. Can somebody tell me what the Wikipedia conventions are on this? Should I revert back to "mocăniţă" in all cases, use "mocăniţa" as the article's title, or (gladly, as I'm a linguist!) explain the morphology in the article? Frankieparley 07:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You should explain the morphology, certainly, since our readers will presumably see both forms. Would Mountain railways in Romania be a better title? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The hoi polloi is a well-known error; if "The....mocăniţa" is the same error, not yet adopted by English, we should stifle it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Official names
It seems to me that The Hague is better covered under above than under official names. We usually don't use official names, unless they are usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would propose the following: When a proper name is almost always used with capitalized "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, we should include it. and retitle. This certainly includes The Hague, although we may want to add language about usage as a noun; the Hague Conventions are another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Inserted, and harmonized with United Statesian's edit. Since The Football Association does not capitalize The, even in our own article, I doubt it is a good example of either general or official usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Names of bands and groups
This says nothing about use in running text. Please take a look at Talk:The_Beatles. Thank you, Espoo (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Still confused
This project article refers to The Hershey Company as an example where the article "The" should remain capitalized. But the article actually becomes colloquial and names the company Hershey's at points. In the article The North Face, the company's full name is The North Face, Inc. The incorporation bit is dropped, but the article remains capitalized, making for awkward reading. Which one is okay to do? Can "The North Face" be altered to "the North Face" when mentioned within a sentence? –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Green Hornet
There's a discussion on the talk page of this article that might benefit from the opinions of people who watch this page. Accounting4Taste: talk 15:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Definite articles at end of name
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite articles) redirects here, so I must ask this here.

If the official name of a company is "The [Name] Company Limited", should the title of the article be "The [Name] Company Limited" or "[Name] Company Limited (The)"?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Questionable exception about newspapers
I removed the following sentence, that has not been discussed here or in the article talk page, and appears quite questionable:


 * However, if the definite article The appears in the masthead title before the city's name, it may be included (The New York Times) or excluded (London Free Press) from the title of the article based on user consensus as to which form is more commonly seen in everyday usage.

The official name of The London Free Press, as you can see, begins with "The". In my opinion, there's no valid reason to omit "The" from the title of the corresponding Wikipedia article.

Moreover, if a valid reason existed to permit exceptions to the general criterion (as described in Titles of works and publications), why should they be permitted Paolo.dL (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * only for newspapers (and not for books, films, etc.), and
 * only when the title begins with the name of a city?

The introduction vaguely describes application of rules before providing them
The introduction presents as a "general convention" a couple of statements which are not. Indeed, these statemets are: This is quite evident to me. I'll boldy try and rearrange (without adding or removing information), so that it will be easier for the reader to understand the structure of this guideline. Paolo.dL (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) just a consequence of the "Rules of thumb", presented in the first section.
 * 2) not very useful, because they do not clearly specify when the article should be used.

Official names beginning with lowercase article
In reference to condition 2 (see introduction), are we sure that in English we don't have official names of works, publications, bands, gruoups, companies, etc. that officially include a non-capitalized article? For instance, there exists an Italian newspaper called la Repubblica in which "la" means "the". As you can see in this picture of the frontpage, "la" is printed with lowercase "l" in the masthead. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Jewish Home
I realize this isn't technically a NC "noticeboard"... but what the heck. I'd appreciate some input at Talk:The Jewish Home from anyone with any interest in the application of this NC (as opposed to personal preference, or confused misapplication of practice in other languages). 84.203.34.169 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Plural names
Articles ('the' and 'a/an') behave differently in the plural than in the singular, and I think we should reflect that. The Carolinas, the Dakotas, and the Maritimes are legitimate titles; removing the article is odd, perhaps ungrammatical. Yet there are arguments to move them based on blind adherence to this page. (Netherlands would not be an exception because it is not semantically plural: the singular is not used for its components.) — kwami (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding this to the page per response at MOS that these are all "conventional exceptions". — kwami (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Added a move request for Americas → the Americas. — kwami (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I object to this alteration because as far as I can tell it is against the policy as described in WP:AT and a distortion of what is done. We do not use article titles of The United States of America, or The Netherlands (both plurals), it depends upon whether the name includes "the" as part of the name as in "The Hague" (a town) this is indicated by a capitalisation of the "T" at the start of the word "The" in reliable sources as has been agree with The Bahamas. Usually we do not prescript  "the"  collective names we do not entitle the article eg "The West Midlands". More of the same Philippines Leeward Islands Isles of Scilly Outer Hebrides ... So if this is a rule and I dispute that it is it is not widly followed.


 * I am concerned that this change here has been used to argue for an alteration to the article Americas in a WP:RM which was itself initiated by kwami here. I am reverting the changes until it can be shown there is consensus for this change. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't change while the issue is under discussion. (Also, there is no singular of "Netherlands", "United States", "West Midlands", etc. They are semantically singular.) — kwami (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD you made a bold change I have reverted it. We now discuss your proposed change and see if there is a consensus for the change -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

One write the Silly Islands are off the cost of Cornwall. The Outer Hebrides are Scottish islands. In neither case would one write "is". The United States depends on usage it is correct to write "The United States are ..." that AFAICT that only change to is in common parlance after the civil war to make a political point. -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You're gaming the system. The change was discussed, then made, and there were no objections. Now that it applies to a move that you don't like, you're changing the MOS in the middle of the discussion. The titles this is based on have been stable for close to a decade. It won't hurt you any to let it take its course. — kwami (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not part of the MOS. -- PBS (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not gaming the system I am following the guidance in WP:BRD. For you to make changes here and then use them to justify a move would often be considered gaming the system. -- PBS (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where was the "The change was discussed"? Your unilateral comments here are not a discussion. And while you can consider that "silence equals consent", you must also realise that now there is an objection you do not have that consensus any more and one a revert has taken place you should discuss your proposed changes and get consent. -- PBS (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now we have made our opinions clear on editorial behaviour let's get back to the issues. -- PBS (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

One write the Silly Islands are off the cost of Cornwall. The Outer Hebrides are Scottish islands. In neither case would one write "is". Your changes are contrary to the article titles policy (see WP:DEFINITE) which states --PBS (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you do not appear to have a good grasp of English grammar or semantics. The Scillies and Outer Hebrides are not analogous to this example. This is specifically the case where you have two (or potentially more) entities with the same name, which are distinguished by an attributive. "Scillies" and "Hebrides" are the names for the groups, not for the individual islands. But the New World is not called *Americas, it's either just "America" or "North America" and "South America". For the latter, the two can be lumped together as AX + BX = "the Americas". Same with "the Carolinas", "the Dakotas", etc. This is a small set of articles; no reason to extend the pattern to the Outer Hebrides.
 * As for DEFINITE, it refers the reader here for guidance, so we can hardly use it as an argument not to provide guidance. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In English "America" is usually a short hand for the United States of America. Americas usually refers to either the continents or the countries upon those continents. The policy on this is quite clear (I have quoted it above) and you suggestion is contrary to that policy. But to give you two more examples:The Hebrides consist of the Outer Hebrides and the Inner Hebrides.   The Scottish Marches consist of six marches three either side of the border. I see no substantive difference between the Americas and the Hebrides or the Scottish Marches. -- PBS (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not contrary according to the opinion of the editor who responded on the talk page. It's not contrary according to any of the people who accepted my change in wording for the past month month. It is you who feels it is contrary; for most of the rest of us, it's pretty obviously a normal exception, as the policy makes allowance for, where avoiding the article distorts the title.
 * Let's try again. The pattern is AX + BX = "the Xs". So, "North Carolina" + "South Carolina" = "The Carolinas". The Inner and Outer Hebrides, on the other hand, are subdivisions of the Hebrides, so that example is backwards. (Yes, North America and South America were originally subdivisions of a single continent America, but as you note, "America" no longer has that as its primary definition, and NA and SA are now conceived of separate continents whose union is called "the Americas".) The Scottish Marches are dab'd by "Scottish". If they were simply called "the Marches", then I would agree that the example would be relevant, but they're not. If they were, then according to your argument the article would have to be at Marches.
 * Now, can you give a single example of the hundreds of articles you fear being moved, where the naming pattern is actually AX + BX = the X's, and so is actually analogous to this one? — kwami (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is not contrary according to the opinion of the editor who responded on the talk page" which editor on which talk page (diffs please). "Americas" to start with because this suggested change is contrary to the stated AT policy. -- PBS (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please supply the requested diffs. -- PBS (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Protected
For one month. When dispute is resolved, please ping me and I'll remove it. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A simple rule
At the moment we have a simple policy rule. ""

The proposed change by kwami started off as

This suggested change contradicts policy. From the conversation above, kwami is now suggesting that this needs further qualification based on "The Inner and Outer Hebrides, on the other hand, are subdivisions of the Hebrides, so that example is backwards". What exactly is it kwami that you think the rule needs to be? -- PBS (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the policy says that, and then refers the reader here for a more nuanced approach. You're attempting to pound every square peg into a bureaucratic round hole.
 * As for the actual wording of the exception, maybe "geographic entities sharing the same name, taken as a group, like the Carolinas". Maybe add "of the form A X + B X = the Xs", if you think we really need to get that specific? The counterexample should clarify that we don't mean every plural names. We can add Outer Hebrides as another if you like. There are very few cases where the exception would apply, and most of those already have 'the' in their title. — kwami (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The naming conventions should explain the policy not contradict it. I put it to you that you have not shown that the few examples such as "the Carolinas" are a case of IAR and probably need to be moved to article titles without the leading "the" rather than trying to make up a complicated rule to suit your own particular preference. As the first character in the title is capitalised it is too easy for people to be mislead into thinking that "The Carolinas" is the usual form (as in The Hague) rather than "the Carolinas". -- PBS (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For the last point: The text doesn't capitalize. Problem solved. — kwami (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not problem solved. It the case or The Hague the use of a capital "T" at the start of "The" in reliable sources indicates that the definite article is part of the name. It which case it meets the requirements of the AT policy. If the name us usually in lower case in reliable sources it does not. -- PBS (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That has nothing to do with it. You argued that people will be mislead into thinking that "the Carolinas" is "The Carolinas". The solution is to write it "the" rather than "The" in the article, which we already do. Easy. Problem solved. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That does not solve the problem! If the article title is to start with the indefinite article and it is to be within the AT Policy as described in the section WP:DEFINITE then unless the addition of an indefinite article changes the meaning (as in The Crown) it needs to be shown that the definite article is part of the name in reliable sources as in The Hague. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please make up your mind what you're talking about, before objecting that the answer to A is not the answer to B. — kwami (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles in non-English group/location names
These sections seem to lack any specific ruling on cases where the article in the proper name is in a non-English language, e.g. La Brea Tar Pits, which has been noted here to be often used in the form of "the La Brea Tar Pits", which literally translates to "The 'The Tar' Tar Pits". There are also fictional groups with non-English names that use (in)definite articles, like Resident Evil 4's Los Illuminados ("The Enlightened Ones" in Spanish), which in-game has been used in the form of "the Los Illuminados". Can we get a verdict on this, please? MarqFJA87 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the text we might say "the La Brea tarpits", but that wouldn't be reflected in the title, so I don't see how we need to decide anything for those. — kwami (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Exception?
Should we list The Holocaust under here? I came across the article, and was surprised to see it used a definite article even though Holocaust is already a redirect. I came here to see what the specific policy was on this, and noticed that under the current wording of this page, The Holocaust definitely doesn't meet the criteria. 1 doesn't apply because Holocaust (with no article determiner ) is a redirect, and 2 doesn't apply because it is referred to as "the Holocaust" (lower-case "t") numerous times in the article. Obviously I wasn't going to RM an article of that level of importance without first checking how the last RM went. I read this and noticed that I actually agreed with the oppose side and I now have no interest whatsoever in RMing the page. However, since the article is an exception to the rule, and has been for a long time, shouldn't we at least mention it on here? elvenscout742 (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The meaning changes with the article and capitalization, just as with "the Crown", so I don't see a conflict. — kwami (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Crown and Crown are separate articles, but Holocaust is a redirect. The exception listed at the top of the page mentions "the Crown" specifically because "Crown" exists as a separate article. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Giving a rationale
I added an introductory paragraph that gives the basic rationale. It was reverted as unnecessary. As any good educator will tell you, if you teach them what to do, they may get it and they may do it; if you educate them on what they are doing, they'll probably get it, and probably do it. Any other thoughts? Dovid (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Going once, going twice... no talkie, no objectee! Dovid (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

When in doubt, doubt.

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * The result of this discussion was that an agreed compromise change in wording would be and was inserted. -- PBS (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A user editing from the IP address beginning with 14.198, attempted to remove the guideline: "When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities.", which has been present since at least August 2012. The only explanation they have given, so far, is their edit summary: "when in doubt, doubt." which is not actually a justification for removing a long-standing guideline. Unless an actual argument is provided, I encourage other users to continue reverting any attempts to remove this guideline. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A long-standing guideline is justification of itself? Where is "be bold"? You still didn't provide a single explanation to refute the edit so far. Not even in talk page for now.
 * "Not long enough"
 * Interesting, I thought you have none. Here, verify your action. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, in an editing dispute, an established text takes precedence until the dispute is resolved, so yes, if there was an established text, you guys need to leave that in until you sort this out. Dovid (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, in an editing dispute..
 * Except that it is not a dispute, please WP:AGF. 63.251 still doesn't provide a legitimate reason to show why is the edit disruptive. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

14.198 -- You are the one who wants to make a change, you need to justify it. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are informed well enough that you didn't explain why is the edit "disruptive" or inappropriate. Each time you reply you ignore my argument, all the while overlook the fact that you *assume* an arbitrary edit disruptive. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, is your argument? I quoted your initial edit comment, above. Unless I missed something, you have not provided any further argument. If you have, please point it out (or better, rephrase it more clearly). 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I quoted your initial edit comment, above.
 * Thank you, but I think I am asking for your argument. Why is the edit inappropriate to begin with? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You claimed, "Each time you reply you ignore my argument". This implies you have an argument. I would like to know what it is. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are contradicting your previous self, you just revert with summary "insufficient explanation", meaning you do admit that "when in doubt, doubt." is an explanation(argument), so how would I think that I don't have an argument at all?
 * If you have trouble understand it, you can just say it, it is fine, or I can expand it for you:

Explanation of removal

 * When you are in doubt that if "The" must precede the university name, you doubt that whether "The" should be added or not, for example, you can email the university, post your concern in talk page, or visit this talk page and ask us..etc. There is no need to assume since that it means you put up your POV without drawing a decision(or consensus..), isn't it obvious? You go revert someone's edit, meaning you should know full well what does the edit change and know for certain how is the edit bad.
 * Yet you chose ignorance and ask me to explain, you should post your doubt on talk page instead of disrupting an edit which you can't understand. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If no one is willing to discuss/disagree, then I will revert it back. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Two editors have raised objections to the removal. You need to actually address the objections, and get some other editors to actually support your removal, before you can remotely claim consensus. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that no one counters with my argument, no?
 * get some other editors
 * Since when does an edit requires two people? You should read WP:BOLD.
 * Actually, no, I have asked you to read WP:BOLD for a few times already, I thought you just said consensus? It looks like you give no respect on policies at all.
 * Two editors have raised objections to the removal.
 * You deliberately speak nonsense again, I don't think your response is moving toward consensus, verifyit. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To further complete my (counter)arguments, according to you,
 * Revert removal of longstanding guideline with limited explanation or consensus
 * On Wikipedia, a "longstanding" edit can be some garbage which hasn't been cleaned yet, or it is an edit of good quality which stands for long. In short, a longstanding edit could be garbage, could be gold.
 * Your argument on "longstanding guideline" has dual use or no meaning. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that since nobody has commented that people have no objections to adopting the edit. The unwillingness of 63.251* to explain his vandalism. I'll give it a couple more days and if I don't hear anything I'll go ahead and adopt it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert

 * Thank you for (finally) explaining (slightly more) about why you want to remove the guideline. I did not claim you had provided no argument, merely a minimal one. To respond to your now stated argument -- providing a default (omission, in this case) is useful, as it encourages consistency, and avoids the need to guess what the typical practice is. In no way does it preclude or prevent someone from attempting to locate actual sources that justify going against it in specific cases. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you thought you've done your part. Thank you for adding a section header to differentiate your annoyance or distressful content. I will kindly discuss the edit along this section.
 * Now you (finally) explain (after you reverted my edit 4 times) about why you want to revert the edit. But I want to tell you that it is too late, before you charge at my expanded arguments, didn't you say so mighty that "I have not presented an argument. I have no requirement to present an argument"? Instead of opening a talk page and express your doubt, or challenge me with legitimate explanation, this time you said it right out that you insist that one doesn't require an explanation to revert an edit, revert my edit selectively without least understanding on the edit you've reverted. Ignoring all rules and violating WP:REVEXP as I advised you.
 * I accuse you for Wikihounding, according to WP:HOUND,
 * Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.
 * If this is not immediately obvious enough, well then, you are WP:STALKING me, and let's see your beautiful contribution log, of course, there is lots of reverts, most(or all?) reverts anonymous editor. As for me, it includes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the corresponding talk pages, all pointless discussion and very long, most are active.
 * Here you are warned, if you violate WP:REVEXP again and revert my edit for no reason, then see you on WP:DRN, don't say I didn't leave you a caution. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

-
 * An edit dispute is where two editors differ about whether or not to make a change. This is the case now. Disruptive has nothing to do with it. I don't think your proposal to remove that guideline is disruptive, I just think, so far, that is unnecessary and unhelpful. Per your mis-statement of Dovid's comment, I've reverted. If you wish to revert back, feel free, but I don't think you will meet with a positive response from other users if you do. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * An edit dispute is where two editors differ about whether or not to make a change.
 * Oh, I don't realize that this is the situation you are in, so it seems that you do insist that you can revert anything according to your liking.
 * Er, what? I don't understand what you are trying to say here. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just think, so far, that is unnecessary and unhelpful.
 * so much that you can't even come up with a single argument except consensus? -- 14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not presented an argument. I have no requirement to present an argument. I am not proposing a change. You are. You have repeatedly been told this. You seem insistent on refusing to acknowledge it. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly been told this
 * Well, I think I've explained myself clearly, but let's see what you mean by "this"
 * I have not presented an argument.
 * Now you said it, and it is the first time. At the meantime, you admitted that you have reverted the edit base solely on your basis. See WP:REVEXP.. and evidently it is the second time I ask you to read it, I acknowledge your arguments.
 * I have no requirement to present an argument. I am not proposing a change. You are.
 * The problem, you revert the edit multiple times, without explanation.
 * You are not only proposing to lock the edit, but you are also doing it all by yourself. I have no requirement to present an argument every time I edit, otherwise why WP:be bold is there and why is article not locked? You see, if you propose to lock the article, then you still end up responsible to present an argument on why it has to be locked, because you are proposing a change. Now that you just assume my edit is bad according to your liking.
 * If you still insist that I ignored your arguments, and just in case you still insist not to accept my arguments above. See WP:REVEXP, here, I quote it for you:
 * What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit while fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified. Obviously it is best to fix the problem and not revert at all.
 * I hope you understand why your revert is disruptive now, when I request you to explain why my edit is bad, you have to explain it, and you shouldn't have reverted any edit according to your liking, this is Wikipedia, not your garden.
 * We Wikipedian don't have much time to deal with all sort of unexplainable phenomena, we can't work along if we can't understand the changes. I hope you understand me now. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've requested the attention of additional editors here. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And here. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 14.198.220.253, at least break your lines properly; the way you type is very distracting to me. On the other hand... adding, removing, or changing content is editing, and so any disputes involving those are editing disputes. Generally, because this is a guideline that affects many articles, we do need some consensus building before changing it. As a result, 63.251.123.2's reverting is not "revert anything according to [his] liking" but rather protecting established consensus regarding the guideline, it's certainly not (only) his own liking. Certainly the issue can be discussed.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  00:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming this. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 14.198.220.253, at least break your lines properly; the way you type is very distracting to me.
 * Thanks, it is very constructive.
 * On the other hand... adding, removing, or changing content is editing, and so any disputes involving those are editing disputes.
 * And all that except reverting? Is it not an edit?
 * Generally, because this is a guideline that affects many articles, we do need some consensus building before changing it.
 * So important that any edit must be reverted for some consensus building? I thought this article is not locked. 63.251 is locking (by reverting) my edit, if you propose to lock my edit, then you have to explain that why my edit is bad, no? 63.251 didn't do that. If you propose to lock the article, then you still end up responsible to explain why such edit is disruptive or bad. Are you trying to say you can't even do that?
 * Certainly the issue can be discussed.
 * What issue? One thing is certain, none of your line addresses the edit so far, let's verify it. I don't know how we can come up and agree with this POV. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added a section break right where 14.198 has (finally) expanded (somewhat) on their reasons for removing the guideline. This should hopefully assist the requested additional editors in finding the actual substantive part of the discussion. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a section break above where you has provide an explanation on your reverts, I accuse you for Wikihounding, see WP:HOUND. If this is not immediately obvious in this section, well see for yourself, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

History of the removed text
The disputed text was originally inserted back in April 2006 as part of a proposed loosening of the existing rule against the use of articles in titles of Universities, with discussion begun here. Nearly a year later, due to no-one objecting, the proposal was implemented. There was a large amount of discussion before the proposal was made, with actual examples and analysis being provided. It's all available in the talk page, above. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mind your loaded language, I have to fix the header. I said "loaded language" because according to your response you have already taken the edit as a legitimate edit, you try to "outreason" the edit, knowing that it is not some "disputed text", it is "removed text".
 * due to no-one objecting, the proposal was implemented. There was a large amount of discussion before the proposal was made, with actual examples and analysis being provided. It's all available in the talk page, above.
 * According to your (big) talk, I can't see any "actual examples" and "analysis" provided addressing precisely the removed text so far. What I have seen instead, is the final conclusion (aka consensus) which suggests the completely opposite on what you said.
 * Quoted from Analogue Kid,
 * I move to accept Melchoir's proposed naming conventions on Universities. My reasoning is, as it stands, if there are examples where it can be reasonably proven that the definite article should be used, we as wikipedia owe it to ourselves to be correct, rather than to apply our own law upon the particular institution. That being said, the burden of proof for whether or not a particular institution should have the definite article needs to be fairly high. I think the case can be made for "The Ohio State University" and "The University of Texas at Austin", but not too many others. --Analogue Kid 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can see, according to the last talk (Analogue Kid again), it is the history of consensus,
 * I can only assume that since nobody has commented that people have no objections to adopting the revised standards. I'll give it a couple more days and if I don't hear anything I'll go ahead and adopt it.--Analogue Kid 15:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit, removal of the text "When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities.", while made independently, merely follows what consensus stands for. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Restarting, again. The current consensus, as I understand it, is to avoid the use of the definite article for universities unless there is clear evidence to use it. By removing the text: "When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities." this is changed, as I understand it, to not having a preference one way or another. This is a change to long-standing practice, and if you want to make such a change, you need to convince multiple other editors that it is a good idea. So far, you have convinced exactly no-one. Multiple editors have explained this to you, I've just been the most persistent. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The current consensus
 * The current consensus is obviously that your argument addresses none of the actual edit, while I give you solid argument, quoted the talk page thanks to your lack argument except "long-standing guideline".
 * The old consensus is history, we are discussing the current version, please WP:FOC.
 * So far, you have convinced exactly no-one. Multiple editors have explained this to you, I've just been the most persistent.
 * You sounded so mighty, I thought you actually convinced no one so far? So, how do you explain your revert disrupt? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To add, you just told me that "you have convinced exactly no-one", that is to say the problem is on me. However, I would really love to know why YOU absolutely cannot be convinced. Let's see what you said,
 * ...as I understand it, is to avoid the use of the definite article for universities unless there is clear evidence to use it...
 * There, you said, "as I understand it", have you even read I wonder?
 * According to the previous reply, as I quoted from Analogue Kid, "we as wikipedia owe it to ourselves to be correct, rather than to apply our own law upon the particular institution."
 * How does that suppose to say one SHOULD NOT use definite article when in doubt? You deliberately overlooked this line, yet you talked about consensus and all. Can you explain yourself? Your attitude is a sign that you are edit-warring. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't the relevant text. As explained above, the earliest rule was to always omit "The". Various people pointed out that in some cases, there was clear evidence that including "The" would be a better fit to "Use common names". Based on this, the guideline was changed to point this out, while leaving the default preference for omitting "The". You are attempting to remove this default preference. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "That isn't the relevant text." Thank you for telling me this is how you interpret the consensus. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that since nobody has commented that people have no objections to adopting the edit. The unwillingness of 63.251* to explain his vandalism. I'll give it a couple more days and if I don't hear anything I'll go ahead and adopt it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to wait and see if anyone else chimed in. I still object to removing all mention of the general preference for leaving out "The" when the evidence in a specific case is unclear or not yet provided. If 14.198 wants to re-word the current way that preference is stated, I'm glad to discuss that, however, if the intention is to remove the guideline entirely -- that's not OK with me (or, I strongly suspect, many other editors). 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "I still object to removing all mention of the general preference for leaving out "The" when the evidence in a specific case is unclear or not yet provided."
 * It is a good point, the general preference is to only document the knowledge as we observe, for more precise, detailed guidelines you can see WP:FLAT, WP:V or WP:OR. That is in contrary to the current version, "when in doubt, do this do that", this is the removed text. So, if you feel something is missing, I understand, then you can add the general preference or you can open a section and ask the editors what to do, but you don't lock the others' edit. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Defaults for article names in the absence of specific evidence have nothing to do with WP:FLAT, WP:V or WP:OR. I'm still not clear whether you want to remove any statement of the default, or merely wish to alter its wording. Could you clarify this point? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh, you ask for clarification now? Then how do you explain your long-standing revert, your deluded and self-centered behavior, reverting an edit without the slightest understanding.
 * When you said "when in doubt,..", it means you can't verify your preference. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been assuming you wished to remove the guideline entirely, which as various other editors have repeatedly pointed out to you, is not acceptable. Reading over the talk page again recently, I considered that maybe you had a different intention, so I asked about it. You have still not actually answered. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "I have been assuming you wished to remove the guideline entirely,"
 * 1. WP:AGF 2. This is nonsensical offense, verify it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nowhere except in the text you wish to remove does it say that the default should be to leave out "The". That's what I want to see maintained. If you are comfortable with replacing: "When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities" with: "Default to not using the definite article for universities.", then we're in agreement. I'm sorry that it's taken us this long and this much text to clarify this point, but so it goes. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you still assume, no?
 * Also, the following line "A definite article should be applied only if The is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere. This guideline is a weak version of the most-common-name rule."
 * If it doesn't tell you what to do if there is no usage in running text throughout university materials and if no usage has caught on elsewhere, then tell me what you think is missing. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What is missing is a positive statement of what to do otherwise. Again, I ask -- are you OK with the compromise I suggest? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It does, if one can show that there is no usage in running text throughout university materials and if no usage has caught on elsewhere, then definite article is not needed. If you don't show such evidence, then technically the edit is a cheat or say it has rooms to improve.
 * OK, let me see if I can describe our conflict. It seems to focus on situations where the evidence (for use of "The") is unclear or not yet provided. My view is that the current guideline says to omit the definite article in that case. I'm getting the impression that you think the current guideline doesn't say that. Is this correct? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If the evidence (for use of "The") is unclear or not yet provided, then find it. If you can't find it, then it is imperfect. Sure, one can omit that for practical reason, I understand, but it is never correct to have any answer and description to that, the guideline is to find the evidence, you find until you have the evidence that whether the use of "The" fits the condition or not. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I already understand that is your view. My question is, do you think that the current wording of the page already agrees with that view, and your edit is merely improving the wording, or do you think the current version is wrong and your edit is an attempt to change it? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of your question agrees with the simple matter of the fact that the edit is an improvement of the wording as it should be.
 * Of course they do -- I'm attempting to refer to your perspective -- I assume you think the edit is an improvement, or you wouldn't be proposing it! 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, how about your reverts, do you think that the current wording of the page already disagrees with that view or do you think the current version is not wrong? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think, as I've said below, the current version says to omit "The" when the evidence is unavailable or not yet provided, and by removing the sentence you want to remove, this is changed to having no position in that case. I note that you have not answered the question. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think, as I've said above, the current version says to omit "The" when the evidence is unavailable or not yet provided, which violates WP:V. I note that you ignored my arguments and basic policies on Wikipedia.
 * "this is changed to having no position in that case." Nonsense, the position is to find the evidence, yes, I just said "nonsense" because you just said how you understood my view, here I note your ignorance. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "are you OK with the compromise I suggest?"
 * It goes beyond the scope, as I have pointed out many times, your revert is necessarily a disrupt and I have to restore my edit back, then we discuss a new edit if you prefer, it will be addition anyway, so that's not really a compromise. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that you don't agree to that compromise. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Thank you for confirming that you are trying to change the guideline, specifically, from saying that "The" should be omitted when the evidence is unavailable or unclear, to having no position in that case. I reject your claim that the current guideline violates WP:V, as WP:V applies to including statements, not what to do when the evidence is unavailable or unclear. Given that you are trying to change the guideline, you need to actually get support for this change, not merely out-last any opposition. Feel free to post on the Village Pump, or other related talk pages (as I already did) to alert additional users to the topic. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "from saying that The should be omitted when the evidence is unavailable or unclear, to having no position in that case." I didn't claim that.
 * Sigh. But you do agree that you are trying to change the guideline, not merely improve the wording without changing the meaning? I got that impression from when you said: "the current version says to omit "The" when the evidence is unavailable or not yet provided, which violates WP:V.". 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I immediately tell you that the position is to find the evidence, no? You also said you understood my view, I got the impression that you are not trying to reach consensus. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "I reject your claim that the current guideline violates WP:V, as WP:V" Then you are trying to out-last any opposition, regarding the current version, my edit(you said "change") merely exhibits consensus, I note that you still didn't respond to my argument on "History of removed text".
 * Now responded. See above. I had not responded before because the text you quote is not actually relevant to what you claim it is. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, according to you, ""The" should be omitted when the evidence is unavailable or unclear" if you think it means the omission is verifiable, then I think your opposition shows either your misunderstanding or edit-warring.
 * You keep using the word "stereotyped" in a very strange way. I have no idea what meaning you are trying to convey with it. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So I fixed that, I note that you didn't explain your POV (I say nonsense) as I see it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally, your constant shift in arguments and inconsistencies as I documented in each reply also shows your lack of acknowledgement, your reverts come before any acknowledgement on my edit and that makes your revert an edit disrupt. You need to actually get support to reject this change, not merely out-last any opposition, or see me on WP:DRN. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't what disruption means, as multiple editors have explained to you. Regarding efforts to get additional editor's views on this, I'm all for it. Please go forth and do so. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the matter is that your revert disrupt, refusal to input your explanation, the attitude "trying to out-last any opposition" in effort to waste our efforts (your revert disrupt, constant shifts in argument, and late acknowledgement, I can compile and verify these if you disagree), is necessarily the behavior of a troll or edit-warrior. The input of other editor (consensus building) is of course viable. However, in your case disrupt resolution is also important. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I am having a real hard time understanding who said what in the section and subsections of Please put other peoples comments in quotes and  if they are a block quote indent them one more than the lever to which your comment is made,  or use green so "" and if you are responding to another's posting then please indent it by one more level until at about eight use the od template to "outdent" (sic) the next posting.

Now showing that I am totally confused by the posting that the two of you have been making I am going to state a new section and try to sum up the position so that others can understand it. If I misrepresent anyone's actions then please comment below what I post in the next section.

Be aware that this page is under an arbcom discretionary sanctions ruling.

If another deletion takes place without a clear consensus for that deletion here on this talk page, then it will be time to initiate discretionary sanctions. to help clarify what the consensus is I have started a new section with a simple question of whether the sentence should or should not be deleted. -- PBS (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting a new section. Sorry about the wall-of-text; I've tried to keep it straight, but it's rather a challenge. green is certainly nice to have. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities
There is a line of text in this naming convention in a section called Universities (see here) that states:

This text was deleted by 14.198.220.253 on 14 November 2013 (diff)

It was reinstated by 63.251.123.2 there then followed a hot revert war until it was stopped by administrative action by user:Mark Arsten "Protected Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)" on 20 November. Since then a cold war has been taking place on the talk page with a wall of text that I had great difficulty following.

The first thing that needs to be stated is that this is a naming convention and it should not contradict the parent policy which is called Article titles there is a link to a section in there the link is called WP:DEFINITE. The relevant sentence is

So to simply the issue:
 * 14.198.220.253 wants to delete the sentence "When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities"
 * 63.251.123.2 wants it to be retained.

Please indicate below your support or opposition to the removal of the sentence


 * Oppose deletion I think it follows policy and if anyone thinks that wording in the policy is incorrect (against WP:V etc) then that person should open a discussion on the WP:AT talk page. Until the policy page is changed I fail to see any justification in the deletion,. -- PBS (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone thinks that wording in the policy is incorrect, then fix it, see WP:Bold. If you want to enforce some obscure specific procedure, then lock the article.
 * If you think the general preference is missing, read the article, don't just quote one line and say something is missing. Here is the following line after "When in doubt.." I quote for you:
 * (bold added by me) Feel free to discuss why you think the general preference is not immediately obvious. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (bold added by me) Feel free to discuss why you think the general preference is not immediately obvious. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support deletion I don't oppose the addition of explaining the general preference, only the deletion of "when in doubt..". The reason, Wikipedia doesn't make its original preference when the editor cannot verify its use, see WP:V or WP:OR. That is, when editor is in doubt, the guideline to find if the use of "the" is applicable. Therefore, that line is necessary a violation of our basic principal(WP:V and WP:NOR) and the deletion is trivial. If you think something is missing or unclear, if you wish to add something, add your own, share your idea or open discussion here. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your argument can be turned on its head and is the usual understanding of WP:V: See the section WP:PROVIT . It does not say "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be inserted". However this is beside the point. This naming convention is a guideline that ought not to contradict the policy page that it explains and enhances. I have quoted the section in Article titles policy on which the sentence is based. If you think that your arguments are valid then you need to start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Article titles and see if there is a consensus for a change to policy before you attempt to change this guideline. As this prohibition of the definite and indefinite articles has been a part of the Article titles policy since November 2004 I doubt that you will gain a consensus for the change there. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be inserted" <- You can insert that but it has to be verifiable, we sure have some level of tolerance but it never make the edit legitimate, that is to say, when someone challenges the edit, one has to provide/find necessary material (or RS..). If it is unchallenged, if you can't verify, then it is imperfect. It is fine, we never say Wikipedia is perfect.
 * From the lead section of WP:V (bold added by me),
 * I hope you understand that the wording here, "when in doubt", knowing that you can't verify the edit, you insert the Wikipedian style of name.. Wikipedian's belief, so it does not have to be the name known outside Wikipedia, so it is plain wrong and that makes the guideline misleading. To fix that, you can add whatever you feel like missing even if the "when in doubt" is removed. I don't know why you think that my edit changed the policy.
 * For WP:AT, I think that's an original advise, the article here as I understand is not locked. With WP:be bold, I don't see how it is necessary to cause trouble for editors in every related page, (do I need to inform V, COMMONNAME, MoS..etc too? I think not).
 * (Pardon my disagreements.) I don't think your quote is also relevant since the edit does not change the policy, (again, if you feel something is missing, add it.) the reason,
 * "When in doubt, do this do that" has to be removed, 63.*'s suggestion on "Default is.." is not clear if the guideline asks the editor to assume. The following line of removed line "A definite article should be applied only if.." implies the inapplicability of definite article, if it is still not crystal-clear, I kindly ask you what you think is missing.
 * Lastly, I propose that, if we agree with modification, then consider the following:
 * I hope that should reach some consensus. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that compromise, as I think it does make it sufficiently explicit that omitting "The" is to be used until and unless the evidence against it is provided. I wish this had been suggested sooner... 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope that should reach some consensus. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that compromise, as I think it does make it sufficiently explicit that omitting "The" is to be used until and unless the evidence against it is provided. I wish this had been suggested sooner... 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The statement itself is also ambiguous. When editors are in doubt? In which case we should check sources. When the sources are in doubt? Then which sources take precedence? Or perhaps the definite article should be removed regardless? It's good that we should clarify policy, so perhaps the statement should be re-worded:
 * Use the definite article, only if it is part of the official name of the university, eg.
 * "The University of Texas at El Paso" (Note that Wikipedia drops the definite article)
 * "University of Oxford". --Iantresman (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment 63.251.123.2 if you agree with the change that 14.198.220.253 has proposed then I suggest you make the change to the text of the naming convention and if it is not reverted after 24 hours I will close this section compromise wording agreed and inserted. -- PBS (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Now done. Glad we could get this resolved (although it's OK if folks still have concerns; I'm happy to be reverted if there are objections). 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.