Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

Archives by topic: Common names 1, 2, 3 Naming conflict 1, 2, 3 Precision and accuracy

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I saw that the Fellini film 8½ has "½", which seems to be a special character, and the title should be 8 1/2. Am I wrong? I was surprised to see that there has never been a discussion to move it. I consider myself pretty keyboard-savvy but don't know of a way to make ½ when browsing the Internet. EDIT: Same concern with 9½ Weeks. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) For navigation, just use 1/2 – it will redirect anyway. 2) To type ½ on a desktop – use Compose key, on some mobile keyboards – long tap on the digit 1, in Wikipedia source editor – "Special characters → Symbols". —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, and I found a more direct answer: MOS:FRAC mentions that Ranma ½ is okay to have, so that logic applies to these films' titles too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been warned that this topic will not be well received. I have worked for decades in Quality Management. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopaedia. Is a title and you have therefore capitalised it. Why do these same rules not flow through the site? All page titles should be capitalised, no? My example was Chinese Water Torture. This should be capitalised as the page title, but continually when in use as it describes a specific person, place, organisation, or thing? I thought that this describes the rules well? https://writer.com/blog/capitalization-rules/ I haven't gone to edit anything as I await advice or concuss from the administrators. This is my first time here so hope I have done this correctly? Thanks. 2A0A:EF40:833:2101:5446:6A9:57E3:A13 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One principle I recall from quality management (which, by the way, you had no reason to capitalize!) is that it often doesn't matter which approach an organization chooses to accomplish something as long as it chooses an approach and sticks to it. The approach at MOS:NCCAPS is the approach used for titles (and section headings) here. Largoplazo (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts from a document design perspective:

• Capitalisation within article titles loses information. In some cases, the information which distinguishes between two different articles. So it's undesirable for that context. Readers need to be able to see the difference between a word used as a common noun and the same word used as a name. For example (I've not checked whether their articles both exist) a red dwarf and the TV comedy Red Dwarf.
• Different capitalisation conventions apply for different things. The way a book title is treated on its title page might differ from the treatment of a chapter title, a section heading within a chapter, etc. Maybe the chapter title is all in in uppercase at the start of the chapter, but lowercase in running heads within the chapter where it serves a different purpose. Library catalogues use sentence case for book titles regardless of what the book itself does, but bibliographies typically don't. And so on.
• I don't like the capitalisation of The Free Encyclopaedia, but I don't think it's being used in the same way as an article title, more like a slogan or name or trademark, so I don't really see a clash of style.

—The important thing is that each kind of text is consistently presented, and is clearly distinguishable from other types of text when necessary. (If it's done well, the reader will be unaware of it and simply find it easy to navigate and read the text.) Musiconeologist (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The disparate treatment between the title of the website and the title of things within the website is comparable to the use of italics to denote book or magazine or album titles versus the use of quotation marks to denote chapter or article or song titles. It's actually normal to use contrasting styles. Largoplazo (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly—maybe also comparable with designing a book cover or title page differently from its contents? It's all part of making things which are different look different. (For myself, I'd like book subtitles to be in sentence case to distinguish them from the titles, but we don't do that one IIRC.) Musiconeologist (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page for Adolphe Schloss I am suggesting that the title be changed to 'The Schlosse Collection'. Presumably this would mean it would no longer come under the biographies heading. If you have an interest, please comment on the talk page. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen arguments being made that WP:TITLEVAR means that article titles should use local names such as at Talk:Iarnród Éireann. That we should only consider Irish sources, and for cities in India, only consider what Indians use not the rest of the English-speaking world. I think this is an incorrect interpretation, we should consider the overall WP:COMMONNAME, regardless of where the source is from, not give one source preference to another.

So if TITLEVAR is only about spelling/grammar (I assume it is), can it be clarified to (adding "spelling"):

If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's spelling variety of English

or some other clarification. As it's being used to against the overall WP:COMMONNAME across all English-language sources.

Unless their argument is correct, and we should use only local names? If so then that should be clarified too. DankJae 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• TITLEVAR says "If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English" - if in Indian English usage a city is referred to in a particular way that is different to British English that appears to be an example of strong ties to a national variety of English. With Irish English, Irish Gaelic words have been incorporated into general Irish English usage. English is a very diverse language, and incorporates some significant differences in English-speaking countries such as the United States, India, Ireland and the United Kingdom. I don't think varieties of English is purely a centre/centre, labor/labour or organisation/organization issue. AusLondonder (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "variety" purely refers to varieties of English, standard differences in spelling, grammar etc, I don't think that applies to alternative names. It gives Defence vs Defense. I do not think TITLEVAR means "ignore overall common names, prioritise names used in the variety of English used". If it does, surely it should be added to WP:COMMONNAME, "use the common name per local sources", but it doesn't, it just says "English-language sources". Of course, if all sources overall use the Irish name then we should too, but not limit it to "we should only look at Irish sources, any foreign source is irrelevant".

  Even if you're correct, TITLEVAR can benefit with clarifying that, article titles should use the national standard name over any alternative international name. DankJae 14:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 5 criteria, recognizability is mentioned 3 times, precision 12, concision 8, consistency, 7, naturalness only once, in the criteria list. Each has a section except naturalness. There are references to 'natural', but they are tied-up with recognizability, or another criteria. Recognizability is the dominant criteria through common name; it's a minority of cases where the other criteria come into play, right? I can't think of one example where 'naturalness' becomes the decisive criteria, superceding recognizability i.e. where having only the 4 other criteria would ever create a problem. i can't think of where a recognizable name is unnatural. Recognizability seems to make naturalness redundant. If so, then good to delete to simplify, Tom B (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpbradbury: one case where "naturalness" is often invoked is avoiding the need for parenthetical disambiguation. For example, the orchid genus Calypso cannot be at Calypso, which is a disambiguation page. It could be at Calypso (plant), but as the genus has only one species, Calypso bulbosa, this is considered to be a more natural title for the article. Monospecific genera needing disambiguation are regularly at the sole species. See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Peter coxhead, thank you, that's natural disambiguation? Which is in the precision section. This is my point, discussion around naturalness always ends up falling under one of the other criteria. Calypso bulbosa is a precise title. There is no article on the genus so no title needed, but if there were it might be the precise: Calypso (genus). There is no natural or naturalness section on the policy page, unlike all the other criteria. What is concise? Keeping things short. What is natural? We can still keep all discussion of natural, and simply delete naturalness from the top section, as it is never used by itself or is ever the decisive criteria, thanks again, Tom B (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpbradbury: "natural disambiguation" might be in the precision section, but it's not precision. There's nothing more precise about Calypso bulbosa than Calypso (plant). (By the way, "Calypso (genus)" isn't used because of consistency; there are many cases of animal and plant genera having the same name, so for consistency and hence predictability we use an disambiguator based on the type of organism involved.) The material needs some reorganization, so that the 5 criteria are discussed more precisely. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, yes we should take it out of the precision section then! where should we move it to? Bulbosa is more precise, about one species, than 'plant'? You talk consistency: again, we immediately fall into discussing a different criteria because naturalness is so vague, Tom B (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deleting naturalness. Naturalness is so obviously important, and so easily understood, that it does not require lots of word, and does not attract controversy. Not everything recognisable is natural, not by a long way. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if it's so important why is there is no section on it? and if so easily understood why are multiple editors saying they don't understand it? can you give one example where it is the decisive criteria overriding recognizability? Tom B (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that our criteria overlap (and reinforce each other) is not a problem. They are all still things that we should consider when deciding on an article title. It may be rare for “naturalness” to outweigh the others, but we should still take it into consideration. Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, overlap is a problem per wp:avoid instruction creep, which suggests I explain my opposition. I oppose this one criteria, as there appears to be no situation where it is needed. Decisions on titles can be more easily solved by editors using their best judgment, to apply the other 4 criteria. If naturalness rarely outweighed the others I would keep it and have a section explaining it. But there is no example where that is case? In the Calypso example Peter helpfully provided, that is more easily solved with just the other criteria, we don't need 'naturalness' which has no section defining it. Would deleting it affect any decision, apart from speeding them up? It looks like a consensus is building that the policy page needs tightening-up at the very least! thanks again, Tom B (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the moves page, there might be about 1,400 move discussions annually. If we assume simplifying would save only 1 minute on average, as it rarely gets brought up, except as a distraction, that would save 24hrs, or 3 days editing. More conservatively, let's say it takes 5 minutes on 5% of moves i.e. 70 moves, that still saves 6 hours, or a days editing. A small change but worth it! Tom B (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may help to explore the archives to see why “Naturalness” was added to the criteria in the first place. A quick scan shows extensive discussion around August of 2010 (archive 29)… but there may be earlier discussions of the concept before we decided on calling it “Naturalness”. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. i see you've been involved in discussions @Blueboar and @Peter coxhead for years! it got added on 19 Aug 2010 replacing 'common usage' [1]. There don't appear to be earlier discussions.

from the start everyone has found 'naturalness' confusing, even the person who inserted it! Examples:""Naturalness" (Yuck!)" "Naturalness and commonality also are fuzzy and tend to change". "I don't get this naturalness thing either - can you give an example of a title which is "natural" in a sense that isn't just a synthesis of common, recognizable and consistent?". Reponse from the person who inserted it, "Naturalness is largely the countervailing force to consistency and precision. But if I come up with a clear example, I'll let you know." But no example. "Why did "common usage" become "naturalness"? It's really not helpful to replace something that is discoverable and quantifiable like how is something named in things that one can read and cite (i.e. "common usage") with something that lacks a definition, i.e. "naturalness", about which people can argue but without a framework to discuss, characterize or quantify "naturalness" among alternative article titles. Could the advocates of "naturalness" speak to why it is an improvement over "common usage"?" There was no clear response. There was a long discussion in 2015, with several examples in which naturalness is never the decisive criteria: [2]: "if a title is in fact the common name (in English) of the subject, then it already automatically meets the naturalness criterion, by definition. It would actually be safe to entirely remove the clause."

I agree: naturalness is just duplicating recognisability and should be deleted. there can't be an example where a recognizable name is unnatural. "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." They're the same thing, in fact the end bit of naturalness is identical to recognizability. No one has come up with an example where they ever differ? I'm not proposing to remove any reference to 'natural', simply to remove the duplicate criteria from the top or just merge them: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, though not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. One that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English", Tom B (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main difference is that “COMMONNAME” (ie “Recognizability”) is determined by what sources use, while “Naturalness” is determined by what is used in the running text of other Wikipedia articles (avoiding the need for piped links). Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case of descriptive titles helps to highlight the difference between recognizability and naturalness: because descriptive titles are used in cases where there isn't a standardized name for a topic, COMMONNAME (and thus recognizability) becomes essentially inapplicable. However, it's still essential to craft a natural title to help readers reach their destination.

Based on this, I think we can articulate the general distinction between these criteria. Recognizability mainly targets the question of "if the reader sees the title, will they know what the article is about?" By contrast, naturalness targets the similar (but not identical) question of "if the reader is searching for information on a topic, what terms might they look for?" As an example, let's consider the descriptive title of Sennacherib's campaign in the Levant; why do we use this instead of, say, Sennacherib's campaign of 701 BC? They're comparably precise, the year-based title is slightly more concise, and both would likely be recognizable to someone familiar with... the subject area. This is where naturalness comes into play: the location of the campaign is more salient than its year, and accordingly, it seems safe to predict that readers searching for this topic will look for a title that distinguishes the campaign by location. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, particularly for an example and attempt to define naturalness. To you the location is more salient and maybe readers familiar in the area. I notice you use the word salient, rather than natural or naturalness, perhaps salient would be better? Also, "look for", is recognizability. We either need to merge, delete, rename, or improve the definition so it's distinct from recognizability, with its own section. No one's come up with an example yet where deleting would make things worse. in the above example, recognizability alone solves the whole thing, Tom B (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"what is used in the running text of other Wikipedia articles", that's consistency! Tom B (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Consistency says that we should consider entitling articles on similar topics in a similar way… so, for example, if there was a question on how to entitle a bio article about a British peer, we would examine how other articles on British peers were entitled. This, however, might be different from how we refer to a specific peer in running text (which would be the “natural” title). We would have to weigh the consistent title against the natural one. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, we would weigh the consistent, natural and recognizable ones, and then go with the recognizable one, as Commonname is dominant. there is a natural disambiguation sub-section in the precision section, so, again, it sounds like you're talking about precision? The policy currently says the natural "title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English", how is that different from recognizability please? Can someone come up with one example where natural/ness trumps recognizability? Tom B (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q related to this bit from WP:POVNAME: An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use.. (italics in source; not mine.) Do the italics here imply "the title should be a standout common name"? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reading is essentially correct, yes. To my eye, the main thrust of the italics is to convey that - if there are multiple titles in common usage - the more neutral title should be preferred unless the non-neutral name is clearly more common than the other options. (The passage also draws a distinction between current usage and older usage, but I don't think that directly relates to the meaning of the italics.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I feel like the italics are a little subtle; I copy+pasted them over to a different discussion and I didn't notice that the italics didn't show up, meaning that this subtext was almost missed.

I think that nuance could be made more explicit. Taking a go at it: "An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must clearly be the most common name in current use". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]