Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin


Quotation marks in article titles using <q> tag, redux

Now that the <q>...</q> tag is whitelisted, it is possible to add quotes around any text anywhere without having to change the content. This includes the article title, see here for an example. The MOS does not (yet) handle this situation, but it states that Use italics when italics would be used in running text. Should we have a similar rule for applying quotes? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because DISPLAYTITLE: does not allow changing the text, so adding regular quotes does not work. Using <q>...</q>, the quotes are added by the browser, so the content is not actually changed. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting... I just tested the technique of using <q>...</q> tags with {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} in this article, and it worked! So, does this mean that the title of every article about a song, short story, etc., will need to be updated this way, in order to maintain stylistic consistency? That's an awful lot of articles; is it worth the trouble? Perhaps the process could be automated with a bot. One way to identify song articles, of course, would be to look for title "(disambiguators)" containing "song"; another would be to key on Category tags within each article. — Jaydiem (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really a good idea? I used two browsers to copy the article title and each includes the quotes (Firefox gave straight quotes and IE gave curlies). Looking at the page, I have no way of knowing what the title of the article is (although I can infer its title from the browser's address bar—assuming I haven't arrived at the page from a redirect). It's one thing to use a trick to show the title in italics, but it's quite another to change the title—that means we get to fight about the title of the page, and the display title, and the title used in the text (why curly quotes in the display title but straight quotes in the article?). Many editors are used to the beautiful simplicity of the fact that the title shown on the page is the title of the page. Many are also used to "use straight quotes"—is the turmoil from introducing doubt on both those worthwhile? Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good question. Perhaps we might compare this to the careful use of en dashes and em dashes in article titles. I don't know if that was done from Wikipedia's inception, but in any case, there is some similarity in that en- and em dashes are distinct characters from hyphens, which means complications for URLs, and the necessity of redirects. But that's been handled so well that I think we all take it for granted. I don't see "fight[ing] about . . . the display title" as a big problem; it should be pretty uncontentious whether or not something is a song title (or other type of name that the Manual of Style says belongs in quote marks). As for the appearance of quote marks added by <q>...</q> tags, maybe it's possible for a user preference to be set up to allow users to choose whether they display as straight or curly? — Jaydiem (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Curly Turkey: I just tried this, and had no problem partially highlighting text rendered between <q>...</q> tags, whether in an article title or the body text. For testing purposes: Here's a sentence enclosed in <q>...</q> tags. Do you still find that you can't highlight any part of it? — Jaydiem (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text is highlightable, but the quotemarks themselves are not. Is this the desired behaviour? Wouldn't this be a terrible thing to happen in the body of the text? For example, My favourite Beefheart track is My Human Gets me Blues, from Trout Mask Replica. If I copy-&-pasted this, I'd lose the quote marks, and the sky would fall. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind—the quotemarks don't appear to get highlighted, but when the text is actually pasted the quotemarks appear (and become straight-up-and-down quotemarks). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apparently there's more to it. The history of Deep Breath (Doctor Who) (ugh! I had to manually delete the quotes to make that link!) includes this diff with "the quotes are not copied" in the edit summary. In my comment above I mentioned that one browser I tried copies the quotes as straight, while another copies them as curly, and Edokter is apparently using a browser that does not copy them. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I use Chrome. I don't consider "copy-pastability" to be that important, there are so many elements and templates that do not allow copying that it should not be the defining factor. If removing two quote marks is all the only downside, we gain a lot in terms of aesthetics. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but this shouldn't be necessary. The default should be the recommended style. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will be, when the CSS is put in Common.css. For now, I'm just polling if this has potential of becoming acceptable practice before I put it in. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redux part

So, I'd like some more discussion. Some of the comments above are due to some technical misunderstandings.

  1. With regards to copy/pastability, all browsers (with the possible exception of IE, of which I can only test 8) do not regard the <q />-generated quotes as part of the title, so they are not copied. 99.9% of articles that may have quotes title, repeat the title as the first phrase of the article anyway. So that is moot.
  2. Common.css now forces applies straight quotes for <q>...</q> tags.
  3. I think the MOS should copy the same rule that goes for italics (Use italics when italics would be used in running text) to state (Use <q>...</q> when quotes would be used in running text).
  4. If the quotes are part of the title proper, real quotes should be used (ie. "Heroes").

For testing, all episode linked from Doctor Who (series 8) now use <q>...</q> in their titles. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TITLEFORMAT explicitly states Do not enclose titles in quotes. It was many years ago that it was decided that TV series and multi-episode stories would get italics and single episodes would get quote marks. As I remember it at the time everything got italics and this was a way to distinguish episodes from their shows. The one thing that was not a part of that discussion was putting article titles in quotes. This did extend beyond TV shows as short films, songs, poems etc are also put into quotes but, again, their article are not using them in the title. As there has not been a discussion to rewrite the specific section of the MOS any articles using quotes in their title should have them removed until a consensus to start using them has finished. MarnetteD|Talk 00:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the titles are not "enclosed" in quotes; they are added by CSS, and threfor not part of the title. This is not strictly related to TV episodes either, but concerns titles in general. One of my points above is to apply the same rule that governs italics in titles. Why should this be different? This is me being bold doing a small-scale test; don't just throw the "consensus first" argument just because you don't like it. I haven't seen any argument adressing any real objection. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 01:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies E as I know how valuable to the entire Wikipedia project (not just the Doctor Who wikiproject) so I know that the following will offend you, but this reads as sophistry. To any reader the title is enclosed in quotes. As to being bold you could do the same thing in a sandbox or draft space to show people how it works. It has also had the effect of other editors applying it to articles beyond the scope of your test. There is no reason to have one set of articles violating policy at this time. By all means get a RFC going and it the consensus is to put quotes in article titles that will be fine. Again my apologies for any offense caused - that is not my intention. MarnetteD|Talk 01:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agian, your only argument is to hold this idea against the current rules. That is not what this discussion is about. Can you put those aside for a moment and comment on the actual merit of the idea? Because this is going nowhere. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the merit of the idea should be in the context of a properly advertised RfC. If you want to change policy, start one. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? No! I want to discuss the idea first, then change the policy accordingly. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the point of an RfC is to have a wide discussion. Where's the value in a few editors discussing it in this thread? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out… discussing the idea of changing policy, then changing policy, is exactly the point of an RFC. And that is exactly what you were discussing here. Don’t know why you wouldn’t want to be. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my earlier concern from the previous discussion still holds: If <q>...</q> titles are adopted project-wide, then what about titles that contain their own quotation marks? We’d end up with two sets of double quotes in the title, which is not the project-wide style for nested quotes. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example where this would be an issue? This would be an edge case; all MOS rules have at least one of those... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you recall, the last time I gave an example, you made a bold edit to it and then claimed WP:STATUSQUO… but anyway, how could those edge cases be handled? We can’t change " to ' in DISPLAYTITLE. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to "Heroes" (David Bowie song), then the matter is handled. As I said above, <q> should not be used where (surrounding) quotes are already part of the title proper. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no benefit in being inconsistent in that manner. So I strongly disagree with that point. If quotes should be added to minor work titles, then they should be added to all minor work titles, or not at all. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Quotation marks in displayed article titles

Figured having an RFC on the issue would be more beneficial than not having one. MOS:TITLEQUOTES tells us to enclose the titles of certain works in quotation marks. We avoid doing this in the titles of their articles. But should we do it in the displayed article titles with {{DISPLAYTITLE:<q>...</q>}}? Example:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<q>A Touch of Class</q> (''Fawlty Towers'')}}

—174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern about this is consistency. If it’s going to be done, it should be done consistently. But can it be done if a quote mark " in the title needs to be converted to a single quote ' per MOS:QUOTEMARKS? If a title is "Foo" Bar, can it be displayed as "'Foo' Bar"? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to WP:COMMONNAME

There is a proposed change at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#When consensus screws thing up real bad. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universities

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia_talk:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Article_title_in_native_language. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stylization of the "common name"

Per such guidance as MOS:TM and WP:AT (including WP:TITLETM) and MOS:CAPS (including MOS:CT), my understanding is that when we refer to trying to use the "common name" (per WP:UCN) for an article title, this does not necessarily refer to using the most common stylization of the name (e.g., regarding the capitalization of the name or the use of unusual typographical formatting like macy*s, skate., [ yellow tail ], Se7en, Alien3, Toys Я Us, and Invader ZIM). In some recent requested move discussions, some editors seem to disagree with that interpretation – saying that using the "common name" refers to using whatever typographical stylization is found most commonly in sources. In a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Composition titles, it was suggested (by Dekimasu) that it may be helpful to have additional clarifying commentary about this here in WP:AT. The suggestion was editing the fourth paragraph of WP:COMMONNAME to read:

Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. Note that the preference for common names does not indicate that titles should necessarily be styled as they are found in other sources. For the proper stylization of the common name, please refer to the Manual of Style.
(using italics here to highlight the key aspects; we would not need to actually use the italics).

Would that be a helpful clarification?

—BarrelProof (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – Capitalisation on Wikipedia is determined by reliable sources, except in cases of WP:NDESC titles. It mirrors exactly the process for deciding what to title an article. Everything that applies to AT also applies to capitalisation, as AT is a policy, whereas MOSCAPS is just a guideline. We always go by what's the most common name in reliable sources. That includes what capitalisation to use. A guideline cannot trump policy RGloucester — ☎ 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment is a very good illustration of my statement that "some editors seem to disagree with that interpretation", which I think helps demonstrate the desirability of some clarification about this issue. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I read that "capitalisation is determined by reliable sources", and would like it but so far see that it's determined by house style. What did I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Yes, the converse of my suggestion is also true. If we only rely upon outside sources for capitalization, that should go in WP:NCCAPS so that people aren't requesting to overrule outside sources in order to, for instance, decapitalize the prepositions in titles based on the guidance of WP:MOSCAPS. But it would also need to go in almost all other naming conventions as well; it would change how we use WP:FAUNA#Capitalisation and italicisation, eliminate WP:NCROY as far as I can tell (insofar as "we always go by what's the most common name in reliable sources"), eliminate WP:NCPLACE#Specific topics as far as that deals with proper nouns, and remove any instructions to refer to the guidance of particular sources over others as at WP:NCOPERA. And it basically rules out WP:CONSISTENCY; naming on Wikipedia would be exactly as random as implied by taking the median of all naming conventions on any given topic outside of Wikipedia. Dekimasuよ! 22:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't rely "only" on anything, and there are always exceptions subject to talk page consensus. However, the general rule, as far as I can tell, is "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia". RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I proposed both versions in the linked discussion: "One solution would seem to be adding an explicit statement in WP:MOSCAPS [should be in WP:AT given subsequent discussion] that common name does not imply common style, and that the MOS should be used to determine style (including capitalization) in article titles. The other solution would seem to be adding an explicit direction that the style guide is only to be used for titles in cases in which the most common stylization of the title is unclear, which would be closer to the way we negotiate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC." Dekimasuよ! 02:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I support your second proposal, which is a more accurate representation of how we apply our policies and guidelines, and one that makes more sense. RGloucester — ☎ 03:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, the original context of the discussion that prompted this suggestion was not the current disagreements over whether something is a common noun or proper noun that seem to be informing much of the discussion below–it was the more mundane topic of repeated arguments over the style guide telling us to decap prepositions with less than five letters while a large number of article titles cap "Like" or "From" or "Into" in clear proper nouns. If your opposition is based on the proper noun/common noun issue that's currently causing heat, at least with the change described by Barrelproof we would know where to discuss the issue–by clarifying or cleaning up WP:MOSCAPS and WP:NCCAPS–rather than engaging in protracted discussion over whether general policy (as policy) or specific guidance (informed by particular circumstances) has precedence when it comes to typography. Dekimasuよ! 20:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I think it's a good attempt to clear up the kind of confusion exhibited by RGloucenter above. And he seems to endorse it, where he notes that our general rule in the MOS does already suggest looking at sources to help decide styling. Dicklyon (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with the idea that a guideline like the MoS should overwrite the policy that is WP:UCN. RGloucester — ☎ 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the MOS does not and should not override any policy. I support clarifying that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AT is a policy. The addition of this new sentence will imply that the MoS can override WP:AT. RGloucester — ☎ 02:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The question here is precisely "Does common name imply common style?" If the style is not an essential component of the common name–that is, if WP:UCN tells us which name to use, but not how to write it–then there is no overriding of WP:AT or WP:UCN involved. This is exactly why clarification is needed. Dekimasuよ! 02:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I believe WP:AT already largely refers the reader to the MoS for such matters, which I believe are basically delegated to the MoS to be handled there (without intending WP:AT to express any conflict with the MoS), but some clarification would be helpful. If the stylization guidelines in the MoS are intended to mostly just be ignored and replaced by searches or to only apply to unsourced articles, we should probably just remove all that guidance or add heavy caveats to it, because all that's just confusing if what we're really supposed to do is survey sources instead. One way or another, I think it would be helpful to have some clarification. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From previous discussions, my stance is that AT is about whether we use "Kesha Rose Sebert" or "Kesha", ignoring any style issues, and then having MOS:TM deal with the style of using "Kesha" vs "Ke$ha". Importantly this would have this applying equally across both title and body, minimizing reader disruptions. That said, both AT and MOS:TM should also carefully use existing sources to establish the style (aka the deadmau5 situation) that is preferred. As long as AT and MOS:TM do not work in tandem, we will keep coming back to this issue. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I agree with that. AT primarily considers whether we should use "Cuban green woodpecker" or "Xiphidiopicus percussus", and the MoS primarily considers whether we should use whether we should use "Cuban green woodpecker" or "Cuban Green Woodpecker". —BarrelProof (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. WP:AT has us consider such titles as Chicago race riot of 1919, 1919 Chicago riot, etc., while WP:MOS leads us to prefer lowercase on "race riot", as was recently affirmed at Talk:Chicago race riot of 1919, in spite of RGloucester's attempt to say that we should let Britannica determine the styling there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, now – no gloating please. I'm not too sure the deadmau5 example is the best myself. Some titles are going to still be difficult to decide, no matter what we do. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, I didn't get my preference on deadmaus, but that's OK. There are still open RMs (Talk:Houston_Riot_(1917)#Requested_move_14_December_2014 and Talk:Pottawatomie_Massacre#Requested_move) where RGloucester wants to let Britannica decide the style, which is why you opened this discussion. People should be aware of that back story. If he was OK with a majority of reliable sources, the question wouldn't even have come up in these, but he insists that Britannica should trump most other sources, which is what makes his position particularly odd. By insisting the WP:UCN gives him permission to go with Britannica, he can conveniently ignore WP's style. The clarification cuts off that excuse, which is why he opposes it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, then, you're trying to change Wikipedia policy to give yourself an advantage in ongoing move discussions. That's nice and WP:POINTy, don't you think? No matter what, we always evaluate sources on quality. We distinguish between RS and non-RS, between journalistic and scholarly, between primary and tertiary. That's how things are done here. I do not believe that Wikipedia has a "style". If it did, of course, it would mandate one standard to apply to all cases. It does not do that. It says to go with whatever is used consistently in sources, and also asks us to evaluate those sources to ensure that we maintain the encyclopaedic register. In other words, in matters what is most common in good quality sources, not what's common in blogs. If you want Wikipedia to have a "style", you ought make a proposal for one. Please, if you like, create a proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 06:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP's style is set out in many guidelines and policies. We might take into account the "quality" of sources, but since sources nearly always vary among themselvs (and even within publications), relying only on sources doesn't work. This "encyclopedic register" is an ill-defined concept that you've invented to promote your agenda. Tony (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I have invented it if it is in our policy? Do you not like our "house policy"? I have no agenda. If I had an agenda, I'd be going around making mass-unilateral moves to a certain style. I haven't done, and have never done. RGloucester — ☎ 06:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If Wikipedia did not have a “style,” then we would not have WIkipedia:Manual of Style. It applies equally to titles and content. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    RG, at Talk:Watts Riots#Requested moves, were you not among those who insisted on getting clarification at WP:MOS and/or WP:TITLE before deciding? Or was your statement "That's why God has sent me here, to protect these articles from the ugly candour of minuscule letters" a better summary of your position there? Dicklyon (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "As a rule, editors engaging in 'POINTy' behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their 'point'." Please explain how that describes the actions of anyone participating in this discussion. —David Levy 13:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr Levy, don't start being testy. I have no time for such affairs. As far as your words are concerned, My Lyon, I did not request any "clarification" as far as I remember. God did send me there, but you'll notice that I haven't opposed decapitalisation schemes that are supported by good sources. I merely oppose those that are not. I don't think any clarification is needed. WP:AT is our article title policy, and the MoS is just a secondary guide in the matter of deciding what an article title is. It is useful in certain standardised circumstances, but not the Gospel of Lyon, certainly. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not expressing irritation. I'm asking you to clarify your assertion that this proposal (or someone's support thereof) is an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. —David Levy 17:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @RGloucester: If the title is not a proper name, then it doesn’t matter who capitalized what. It’s wholly a matter of house style. It’s up to the editors of each publication. In WP’s case, it’s up to us, and our style is to use sentence case. This discussion is not about when a name should be considered a proper name, and it’s not about whether we should stop using sentence case, though those may be discussions worth having. Please do not take this one off topic. Thank you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that. However, the problem is determining what is a proper name, not whether to capitalise proper names. According to both AT and MOSCAPS, whether something is a proper name is determined by how reliable sources capitalise that thing. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was not the original question here, however; see above. Dekimasuよ! 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the original question, but it is one the problems that any change of this sort would cause. AT must trump the MoS. AT offers its own advice on stylisation, and the MoS must remain subordinate to AT. Otherwise, we shall have a situation whereby the MoS is used to overwrite AT, and that simply isn't acceptable in any way. There are cases of stylisation whereby the MoS provides its own dictates, such as when to use units. Those are questions purely based on Wikipedia's own "style". However, in cases of capitalisation, where AT is explicitly the policy that should apply, the MoS has nothing to do with it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are assuming a transparent equivalence between written text and the common name that may not exist. You seem to be arguing that the style used by reliable sources is an integral part of the common name, perhaps because we are asked to use reliable sources to confirm that name, but nowhere does WP:AT state that this is the case. Written evidence of the common name is evidence of the term's usage, not the sole arbiter of how it is used. WP:UE works better for your argument, because it already says that "established systematic transliterations... are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic." Here too, though, it says nothing explicit about the stylization of the transliterations. Dekimasuよ! 21:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AT doesn’t “trump” the MOS. They should not contradict. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They do not presently contradict each other. AT says to capitalise proper names, and so does MOSCAPS. Proper names are said to be established by use in reliable sources. What's so hard to understand about this? RGloucester — ☎ 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either way, whether we leave capitalization and other styling up to sources or to our MOS. Anything that reduces any perceived conflict between naming policy and MOS is a Good Thing. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But leaving styling up to sources won't solve RGlouceter's underlying problem of "encyclopedic register" where he wants to let Britannica set our style. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But it would end the debates over what the policy really means. For the record, I believe that any proper name that isn’t in simple title case should be rendered here as per common usage in the most reliable sources (and non proper names should use sentence case). But if the consensus is for something completely different, I’d be happy with having anything plainly laid out. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Content != Style. Seems like a useful clarification even though there are other places that also clearly call out the MoS for covering style of article titles. Having a consistent style is useful to readers. PaleAqua (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with the above explanations (by Masem, BarrelProof and Dicklyon) regarding the distinction between content and style. As Tony1 noted, styles can vary wildly among reliable sources (and even within a particular reliable source). I don't know why RGloucester places so much weight on Britannica's house style or why he thinks that Wikipedia policy mandates this. His preferred course of action would essentially nullify the Manual of Style's relevance to article titles (and given his statement that he "[does] not believe that Wikipedia has a 'style'", this appears to be his goal). Wikipedia's house style reflects those of reliable sources, but isn't supplanted by them (let alone one in particular). —David Levy 13:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed... There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of COMMONNAME involved in the premiss of this proposal. Stylized names such as macy*s, skate., [ yellow tail ], Se7en, Alien3, and Toys Я Us (the examples given) are not actually the COMMONNAMEs for these subjects (I am less sure about Invader ZIM). I suppose one could argue that the stylized version form the WP:Official names of the topics (being how the the name is presented in advertizing and packaging), but most reliable sources (especially those that are independent of the subject) don't actually write the names with the stylization when discussing them. Compare this with a subject like Deadmous5, where an overwhelming number of reliable and independent music industry sources routinely include the stylized "5" at the end. My point being, we should not change the policy based on a poor premiss... we need to keep in mind the distinction between OFFICIALNAMEs and COMMONNAMEs. We need to look at sources that are independent of the topic and see how they present the name. Most of the time, they won't include stylization when discussing the topic... but, when the reliable independent sources do include stylization, then we need to pay attention to that fact... we can know that the stylization is accepted as being an integral part of the topic's name, and we should follow the sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with most of what you wrote, but my impression is that BarrelProof simply copied those examples in reference to the broader concept of maintaining a house style. The above discussion focuses on disagreements wherein neither of the conflicting styles is unusual or favored mainly by trademark owners. —David Levy 15:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The deadmau5 case had nothing to do with MOS vs TITLE; it was entirely about MOS:TM and some legitimate disagreements over whether the threshold test there was met. Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn’t COMMONNAME frequently invoked as well? I thought the argument was (various interpretations each of) a small part of AT vs a small part of MOS. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the Article titles policy has its own guidance on such things in guidelines that are called naming conventions. For example WP:AT has its own information on how to capitalise ( AT § Article title format ¶ Use lowercase, except for proper names and its own guideline WP:naming conventions (capitalization)). Unlike the MOS which is stand alone and prescriptive, the AT policy is based on usage in reliable sources. Before that principle was established on this page, usage used to be based on a survey of all sources both reliable and unreliable, so many of the naming conventions were prescriptive to try to mirror usage in reliable sources, and while they were successful most of the time, such rule based naming produced inaccurate article titles for the rest. I see this as a retrograde step back to prescriptive naming, for example how does this proposal help in deciding the best capitalisation for the Boston Massacre or whether Comet Hale–Bopp should or should not use a dash or an ndash? I say "Let the sources be with you" rather than "let force be with you". -- PBS (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as we keep this attitude , that AT and MOS:TM are two very separate things with no harmony, we will continue to argue on naming schemes like this. The two pages need to work in tandem, but this also means that MOS:TM should not be as prescriptive, and AT should not be as subservient to RSes when there's clear style problems for WP. There are some naming issues that have to be discussed with the idea of what the prose will use to keep the title and prose versions consistent, for people to find the article to start with , and the like. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question of hyphen or en/em dash, a question of style, would be delegated to the MOS. As would the question of whether to capitalize proper names (which “Boston Massacre” is). But if this change is made, we may need to add guidance on determining whether a name is a proper name. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • " en/em dash, a question of style" who says it is a question of style does not not depend on whether the words are part of a name? Or do you always use ndash for the component parts of a name? As to whether "a name is a proper name" or not how does one do that without examining reliable sources? -- PBS (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The en dash question is pretty well explained already at MOS:DASH. Absolutely agree on improving the MOS guidance on determining whether a name is a proper name. The current guidance is MOS:CAPS is weak ("Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia."), but it's what we have. Incorporating more linguistic knowledge as discussed at Proper name would improve it. Still, the current scheme works pretty well, until people like RGloucester argue that the Britannica trumps almost all other books (and he couches this in his misdirecting language about "blogs"). Dicklyon (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as WP:NCCAPS, it also says things like "For details, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Composition titles" and "For French, see for instance Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France and French-related#Works of art." Those parts of the MOS don't say "refer to reliable sources to determine how to capitalize." As long as these sorts of things are scattered throughout the naming conventions, we can't just say that the naming conventions and WP:AT are independent of the MOS. Dekimasuよ! 21:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what does "For the proper stylization" mean? -- PBS (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably "For styling guidance" is a better way to express what he obviously meant. Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC
    This came up at the linked discussion as well, but I still believe "stylization" is the more precise term to use here. Wiktionary: "stylization (plural stylizations) The process or result of designing or presenting in accordance with a style" and "styling (plural stylings) Any particular form of decoration." Maybe "For guidance on stylization" would work, although changing "proper" (i.e. "correct within the context") to "guidance" could result in reinscribing the problem of references to WP:AT policy trumping explicit guidance in the MOS (or individual naming conventions). Dekimasuよ! 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    if "he obviously meant" it why write what was written? So Dekimasu you think that there is a "proper" way to do style something, tell me under your "proper" style which is correct "Boston Massacre" or "Boston massacre" and how do you come to the conclusion that you do? -- PBS (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So you were asking about "proper" and not "styling"? In that case, the answer would be that by "proper" I meant "whatever the style guide says to do." That is, following the style guide is proper procedure/best practice. I am certainly not trying to say that there is any inherently "proper" way to style something. Dekimasuよ! 00:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the overloaded term "proper" is not so great here. The MOS is not about saying what is "proper" or "improper", or "right" or "wrong", but rather what accords better with our house style, where unnecessary capitalization is avoided, even in titles. The general idea is that when you see a wikignome making edits to make things accord better with house style, you should understand that that's progress. Nobody gets punished for creating articles with titles in title case, which might be normal, proper, or preferred in other styles; we simply move it to improve. Take a glance at new article feed and you'll often find some where you can help. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The styling of the title has to match the styling of the text (subject to position in a sentence). The MOS is clearly the place in which to set out policies and guidance on styling, not AT which only covers a very small part of an article. As others have noted above, AT is used to select the wording, MOS to select the styling of that wording. Previous debates (e.g. capitalization of bird names, hyphens vs. en-dashes) have consistently upheld this position. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that the styling used in the text should match the styling used in the title... However, I think both the title and the text should follow how independent reliable sources present the name. The basic concept that evolved into COMMONNAME needs to be expanded into a COMMONSTYLE guideline. In other words... instead of amending WP:AT, we should be amending the various MOS guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blueboar: well, this is an old discussion. I started off being more sympathetic to the notion of COMMONSTYLE, and remain somewhat hostile to attempts to make the MOS over-prescriptive as to style. In practice, however, COMMONSTYLE runs into serious problems. One is that that styles vary with ENGVAR (e.g. capitalization varies significantly) so COMMONSTYLE leads to distracting nationalist disputes. Another is that it's hard to check styles in reliable sources since search results don't always maintain them. But the main reason is the desirability of at least some level of "house style". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposed clarification would be a helpful clarification to the page, and result in increased harmony with MOS:TM. This encyclopedia is an edited product and random chasing after MOS trends in whichever publishers publish on whichever Google Book hit isn't a productive or meaningful endeavour. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, you must take issue with MOS:CAPS and WP:AT, because both of these ask us to do exactly that. RGloucester — ☎ 19:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—So ... "saying that using the "common name" refers to using whatever typographical stylization is found most commonly in sources"—those editors would insist on the source's font and font-size being used, too? Come on ... And it is typical for sources, even so-called "reliable sources" to be inconsistent with each other and within themselves. That is why publishers have a house style. Tony (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... IF a given name was consistently presented in diverse sources using a consistent font and font-size, then I would say yes... Wikipedia should pay attention to that fact and follow the common style. However... the reality is that finding commonality in sources with regard to font and font-size would be an extremely rare occurrence. So, I don't think we need to worry about fonts and font-sizes. We are really talking about other forms of stylization. Blueboar (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But don't sections like MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS already acknowledge that when sources are consistent, we do as they do? Trying to follow "most common" would be chaos, but when they're consistent nobody argues. You would not want to see "it appears in sources more often with serifs than without, so we need to use a font with serifs"; yes we see things like "the Britannica capitalizes it, so we should, too", with WP:UCN cited as justification; nobody buys this, yet they you seem reluctant to shut it down. It's weird. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluboar, so that's a "no we don't in practice follow the font and font-size in a source". Where is the boundary, then? Curly vs straight quotes and apostrophes have to adhere to "sources"? French angle-quotes? German insistence on hyphenating street names (where in English they're typically not hyphenated)? Slavish reproduction of dense forests of Vietnamese diacritics? I'm deliberately plumbing these issues to illustrate a point: that slavish adherence to sources is unsustainable and in manty cases not even logical.

    We have a house-style to minimise arguments on article talkpages; those who argue for adherence to sources are setting us up for lots and lots of arguments, diverting us from working to improve the project. Simplicity, please. Tony (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, Tony... As I said, it would be rare for the font and font-size to be consistent in sources, but IF the sources are consistent when it comes to a specific topic, then we would (and should) follow the sources. That means we can not form a generalized "rule" (an "in practice") about this. Each name has to be examined on an individual basis. You ask "where is the boundry?"... I am not sure you can (or should) draw one. Each case is unique unto itself, and every "in practice" guideline has lots of exceptions.
As for the "but we want to limit arguments" point... true... however there is a difference between argument and discussion. We actually encourage discussion on Wikipedia, and don't want to limit it. From my experience, most of the arguments arise when editors try to stop the discussion with a slavish adherence to "the rules". Shutting down discussion does not improve the project. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, Tony, your idea is to follow sources when they support your position on capitalisation, and ignore them when they don't? That's contrary to what is written. I agree that we shouldn't be reproducing diacritics, following sources on the type of inverted commas we use, or any of that rubbish. One of the biggest travesties on Wikipedia is the naming of such railway station articles as Praha hlavní nádraží. I have no idea what the justification is for using entirely unreadable names. Regardless, capitalisation is clearly another matter, according to the current policy/guidelines. If you'd like to mandate a set capitalisation scheme, propose one. RGloucester — ☎ 04:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So, Tony, your idea is to follow sources when they support your position on capitalisation, and ignore them when they don't?"

    No, what gave you that idea? Tony (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You said "those who argue for adherence to sources are setting us up for lots and lots of arguments, diverting us from working to improve the project", but when the sources don't support your position in an RM, you ask for more sources. RGloucester — ☎ 04:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be some critical missing information here to support your allegations, and anyway this seems like a personal attack. Regardless of whether it is or not, this discussion is not the place. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Adherence" to sources would be an impossible mess, as sources vary so much. We must, and do, consult and respect sources, and rely on them to help understand usage and meaning, in order to decide what aspects of our styling guidance apply. When sources are consistent, we should have little question about what to do; see MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM, for example. Let's just keep on doing it better, and all will be good. Dicklyon (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about conflicts?

Where might MOS and TITLE come into conflict, and what would be the result? If we took style from a vote of sources, we'd see some more upper casing of a random selection of topics that are important to experts in their respective fields, and a somewhat more random use of en dashes in date ranges and connections between symmetric pairs, and more stylizing of trademarks, perhaps. Then the situation would be that if we referred to such things in the text of an article we'd style them according to the MOS, and if/when we made an article, or moved an article to new topic, we might than go let a vote of sources change to a different styling if TITLE said to take styling from sources. That would be quite a mess; it is much cleaner to specify style in one place, so that we can't have conflict. That's what the MOS is. Let's keep using it; let's change it if it's not doing what we want for titles. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, while WP:AT is mostly focused on article titles, it is not completely limited to titles... and never has been. In fact, what is today WP:AT started out as WP:Names (which is why we still point to various project level NAMEING conventions). In other words, this policy does (and should) affect names in text as well as in titles.
The solution to conflicts is not to amend COMMONNAME... the solution is to adopt a COMMONSTYLE provision at MOS. I have repeatedly suggested that we should change the MOS to better account for stylized names. The various MOSs should say that we should follow the sources when a name is routinely stylized in the sources. I know the regular editors at MOS don't want to hear that suggestion... but I will continue to suggest it. The rational for it is the same as the rational for WP:COMMONNAME... only applied to style: If a significant majority of reliable sources (especially those that are independent of the subject) stylize a name in a given way, then that stylization is the verifiable, accepted, normal, standard way for that name to be written. It's how readers will expect the name to appear. It's how we should write the name in our articles. The MOS should acknowledge that fact. It's that simple. Blueboar (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to some debate about what "routinely" means, that's pretty close to what the MOS does already, in MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS. I agree that the place to work on amendments is at MOS, and that's what the current proposal clarifies. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please, let us respect sources

If people are at all familiar with my editing and my move requests, they know that I almost always present data from sources. See for example my open RMs where book evidence supports the move, but people ignore that while citing odd interpretations of TITLE: Talk:Long-period_variable#Requested_move_14_December_2014, Talk:Houston_Riot_(1917)#Requested_move_14_December_2014, Talk:Pottawatomie_Massacre#Requested_move. If people want data from sources to help with title decisions, they should clarify that some of these are styling issues and some are naming issues, and then jump in and help decide RMs according to guidelines and policies. How is it that RGloucester hasn't been laughed out of town yet with his God and Britannica theories? Why are people who want to follow sources not helping to make sensible decisions based on sources? Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, indeed. Tony (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One must weigh sources based on value, not edit ideologically. Our policies and guidelines demand it. RGloucester — ☎ 04:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Earlier in this discussion was a quote from you about letter case, a quote which you did not contest, that sounded extremely ideological. I would humbly ask you to examine that and consider your own advice. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Find something better to do than badger me, IP. I stand by my words. God wills each action I act out. Do you question my faith in the divine? You ought not. RGloucester — ☎ 06:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not intending to badger you. As for questioning faith, at this point I question your good faith, as this comment rather smacks of trolling. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't my fault that people these days are godless. God has driven man from his first day, and shall continue to do so until his last day. Regardless, I hope you can find something better to do. RGloucester — ☎ 06:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that isn’t your fault. But this is encyclopedia is a secular work, and imposing any deity’s will on it goes against NPOV by introducing a heavy ideological bias. This is why the community insists on rational debate and finds proclamations of God’s will unfavorable—not because they’re godless heathens, but because this is not a religious work. I hope these explanations make sense and help. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue that predated any recent "event" move requests and was unrelated to these specific arguments (or RGloucester or anyone else discussing them); I hope we can try to keep discussion of particular editors out of it. (In the interest of keeping the discussion on track, might we be able to merge this subsection back into the last?) Dekimasuよ! 05:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a slightly tangential appeal, to those who claim to respect sources, to back it up with action. I realize the issue is old, but it was RGloucester's recent revert of a bunch of moves supported by sources, and subsequent bizarre arguments in RM discussions, that prompted BarrelProof to bring it up again at this time. There were several explicit calls in Talk:Watts Riots#Requested moves to clarify the policy and guidelines (as you well recall). That's why we're here. Let us decide. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Moves supported by sources"? Unilateral moves against consensus. You didn't even take the time to compile the sources before you made the moves, which we know because even you admitted that a few slipped through that should not've been decapitalised. What a bunch of rubbish. If you can't take responsibility for you own poor actions, please don't even bother speaking about my "bizarre arguments", which are not bizarre at all. RGloucester — ☎ 06:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not admit such a thing. One, I admit, is close enough to "consistently capitalized in sources" that I'm going to back away from it, so that we only have to talk about the ones that are clear. So far, no RM has closed with a consensus against any of my moves. In favor of decapitalization, these have closed, suggesting a consensus against your theories of God and Britannica: Talk:Chicago_race_riot_of_1919#Requested_move_2, Talk:Potato_riots, Talk:Rock_Springs_massacre#Requested_moves. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained why those passed. I shan't start circular arguments with you. I cannot imagine that such a person as you exists in actuality. RGloucester — ☎ 06:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STOP... the line between spirited debate and personal attack has been crossed. Take a break and come back when you can discuss this without making it personal. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles&oldid=638640292

Leave a Reply