Error: The code letter for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

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 Precision and accuracy

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

See also Archive 34: Ambiguous or inaccurate

I think this sentence in the Common names section should be improved or removed: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."
Problems:

• "ambiguous names" - are already handled by disambiguation rules, so why avoid them?
• "inaccurate names" - who or what decides that a certain name is "inaccurate"? We will need some objective definition for it, otherwise this phrasing paves the way for "improving on our sources".
• "are often avoided" - how often? Better not to use weasel words in our policy pages.

Thoughts? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When and how did this sentence slip into the policy? I don't remember any discussion of it (And I would have opposed if it had been discussed... the "inaccurate" part seems to conflict with WP:Official name, where we clearly say to favor a commonly used "inaccurate" name over the more "accurate" official name). Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... upon examination, it seems that it has been in the policy for quite a while... we just didn't see the conflict before. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So, if ambiguous names are handled by our disambiguation rules and inaccurate names are not avoided if they are common, then we can as well delete this sentence to resolve the policy conflict per WP:POLCON. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed before (PMA moved it up from its position at the end) and I'll look for the previous discussion in a moment. But it evolves around the "as determined by reliable sources" not what Wikiepdia editors think are inaccurate or titles that are ambiguous because there is a dab page of similar names. -- PBS (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is basically a confusing phrasing. Reliable sources are needed to determine that other reliable sources are not reliable. And how is that not going to turn into a circular argument? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Archive 34: Ambiguous or inaccurate, for the earlier discussion and where the phrase comes from. The example originally given was "tsunami ... over the ... less accurate tidal wave". (This popular usage changed since the big Indian Ocean tsunami, but go back before that and there were plenty of scientific articles which explained the difference, while many non scientific sources continued to use the term tidal wave). -- PBS (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Good to see that I am not alone in seeing problems with this phrasing. So basically it is trying to say this: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable academic/scientific sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable popular/media sources." Or maybe more simply: "More accurate names, as determined by reliable academic sources, can be preferred over the more common names found in reliable popular sources (e.g. media)". Is that correct? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a specific case, but it happens in other fields as well, for example the names of legislation, legal cases and other things. But care has to be taken in drafting it because otherwise we end up with pushers who say it should be the "Catholic Church/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints/Conservative and Unionist Party" etc, because that is the official name they use. Perhaps we need to limit it to "reliable third party source" and I don't think your wording makes it any clearer than it is now that we are specifically talking about "article titles described as inaccurate in authoritative third party sources" BTW there is a problem with "in" is that a source can also be the "creator of the work" (WP:RS), so I think this needs further discussion. -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous names, in the context of thus sentence, are not handled by WP:DAB pages. The point here is actually to avoid the need for dab pages by using more precise names (when possible) rather than confusingly ambiguous names. This is about their real-world use, not about the number of articles with similar names in existence on the English Wikipedia.

For example, what's a heart attack? Most people mean a myocardial infarction, but some people use this word to mean benign heart palpitations, panic attacks, or other conditions. Some of these conditions are equally serious: cardiac arrest due to electrical shock is a "heart attack", but it's not a myocardial infarction. The term is ambiguous, meaning that if someone says "I had a heart attack during the scary movie", you can't be certain in the real world which one of the various meanings the speaker intends.

And, in this instance, the confusing, ambiguous, imprecise nature of this term is amply documented in reliable sources, and we have taken their advice to reject the "ambiguous" real-world name in favor of the precise, equally real-world names for these multiple conditions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it is basically a poorly worded reference to the "precision" criterium: "Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." and already explained very well in WP:PRECISE. Explaining the same thing in too many different places is what leads to confusion and policy conflicts. Why don't we replace this phrase with something more clear like: "If the most common name is too imprecise or ambiguous, then we may opt for a less common (but still common) alternative name." MakeSense64 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not necessarily about precision it is about using the information in sources about the article title not about surveying the literature ourselves. It is rare that such information is available, but when it is it normally the determining factor in an RM discussion for the name that is selected as the article title. And it does not include the use of expert terms ("someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic"). Probably the best thing to do is to move the sentence back out of the paragraph reword it if necessary (like replacing "by reliable sources" with "in reliable sources" ), give WhatamIdoing's example, and keep out eyes open for another one that comes up at WP:RM. -- PBS (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So it's now pretty clear that the current phrasing is rather confusing and open to various interpretations, which are not necessarily in line with the original intention. Afaiks the confusion comes from "by reliable sources" appearing twice in the same sentence, while it is not about the same "reliable sources". It is about "more authoritative reliable sources" contending that a certain name found more commonly in "all reliable sources" is inaccurate or ambiguous for a given topic. In that case we may decide to follow the information in these "more authoritative reliable sources" and opt for the more accurate name.

Looking into @WhatamIdoing's example I am not quite sure this is a good example. Right now Heart attack redirects to Myocardial infarction. But if what he says is right then that shouldn't be. We should have an article at Heart attack explaining that there are various conditions that may be referred to as "heart attack" on the basis of these "more authoritative reliable sources" who say so. The imprecise nature of this term as amply documented in reliable sources, that can make for a good and useful article. Letting Heart attack redirect to Myocardial infarction only reinforces the wrong view that they are the same.

And this makes me wonder whether we need this phrase after all. If we have ample reliable sources stating that a certain common term is inaccurate and why, then we have ample sources to create an article for that inaccurate term. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy for your idea, of course, but I believe that Heart attack redirects where it does because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Most readers who want to know about heart attacks are looking for information about cardiac problems caused by blocked blood vessels, that is, myocardial infarction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how nicely we obey our "rules", don't we? Anyway, I am happy you brought up this heart attack example and have now taken it here Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Acute_usefulness. We will see if there are more editors who have sympathy for the idea. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse

The phrase in question is now also misused in RM discussions as you can see in this edit: [1]
Editor(s) try to reject anglicized or conventional English names as "inaccurate" and quote this particular phrase, even though that has clearly never been the intention of this phrase. Then you get more votes per "accurate name", and it means articles get moved against our policy. So I think we should implement the earlier suggestion and add a clear example for what this sentence actually means (e.g. heart attack). To stop misinterpretation we can also add a phrase stating that: "Common names should not be considered "inaccurate" just because they do not follow native spelling." Does anybody object? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debates over which name is more "accurate" can often be settled by pointing to WP:Official name... the native spelling (ie with diacritics) can be considered the person's "Official name"... which is not necessarily the name that we use as a title. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the heart attack example as an explanatory footnote.

It's not clear to me that a similar footnote would be as useful for the diacritics problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see your edit has been reverted already. And it makes me wonder: if we have so much trouble to find and agree on a good example for this phrase, then what is "often" doing in that sentence? If this happens often we should find examples easily.

What is the actual need for this phrase, when we already have a "precise" criteria that makes it clear that a title needs to be "precise enough" to identify the topic. It is redundant and only creates confusion and misuse of this sentence. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should revert the revert as the editor who made it does not seem to be taking part in this discussion, and those that do seem to be broadly in agreement. MS64 remember above we talked about where this sentence came from and that it is to do with what is said in reliable sources about accuracy and not the precision that is meant by this precision as choice for article titles made by Wikipedia editors. -- PBS (talk)

Yes, I remember what we discussed. But we cannot deny that "accurate" and "precise" are pretty much synonymous, so the phrasing easily creates confusion. Imo, the contention that a given term is "not precise enough" to serve as an article title, can either come on the basis of common sense, or because we have reliable sources contending that the term in question is inaccurate or ambiguous. Is there any need to spell out the latter case in a confusing sentence, while we struggle to find good examples for this exception? Anyway, I see that Blueboar has simplified the sentence and it looks now more clearly worded. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We most certainly can deny that accuracy and precision are the same! They are really very different. "The Sun is about 100 million miles away from the Earth" is accurate and imprecise. "The Sun is 36.42249249 inches away from the Earth" is inaccurate but very precise.

I think that the example should be restored. If Noetica wants to contest it, then Noetica can show up on the talk page and explain how zero objections here, in a discussion that lasted a couple of weeks, indicates widespread disagreement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate naming as specified in reliable sources rather than usage by editorial survey of reliable sources

BB I reverted you change with the comment "revert last edit (see the talk page section "Questionable phrasing: Ambiguous or inaccurate") The point of the sentence is when reliable sources say specifically say that a name is inaccurate. (Eg heart attack) BB your change guts the sentence." because the change from:

• Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

to

• Ambiguous names for the article subject are sometimes avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

Alters the meaning from a reliable source specifically saying a name is inaccurate to just the usual editorial survey of usage. If we have only the editorial survey meaning then we can remove the sentence completely -- something I am not necessarily against -- but a halfway house is just unnecessary and confusing. -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am trying it with a slightly different formulation that retains the original meaning, while being less confusing imo. Any objections to this formulation? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your change was: "A common name may be avoided as the article title, if we have reliable sources who contend that the name in question is ambiguous or inaccurate for the article subject." I think it would be better if "if we have" were changed to "if there are". BB would that address you comment in the edit history "the fact that one reliable source says 'X' is wrong is not a reason to avoid 'X' " as both "have reliable sources" and "if there are reliable sources" mean more than one. -- PBS (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is with including the word "inaccurate" in this context. If a particular name is the most commonly used by reliable sources then, due to that very predominance of usage, that name simply is not "inaccurate". It may not be the "official" name or "approved" name... but it isn't inaccurate. Usage makes it accurate. Blueboar (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your suggestion of removing the entire sentence (pending further discussion)... Unfortunately doing so removes the bit about avoiding the most commonly used name if that name is ambiguous (which I think is an important exception to WP:COMMONNAME, and should be stated.) Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal made above has inspired me to think about how we present consistency as a goal. I think consistency is a goal... but... only in situations where it supports the other goals. It should not be a goal in situations that conflict with the other goals.

To give examples... take the case of our flora articles... here we have the issue that plants (and to a lesser extent animals) have both non-scientific names and scientific names. The non-scientific names vary from place to place (a plant might be called "Spikey Persimmon" in one local, "Pink Julip" in another and "Witch's hat" in a third). More importantly, the non-scientific name used for a particular plant in one local can be used for a completely different plant in another local (thus, the name "Yuckberry" may refer to two different plants). Thus, using the non-scientific name as an article title causes a problem with the goals of recognizability and disambiguation. However, this is not the case if we use Scientific names... the Scientific name of a plant is the same in all locations, without any overlap. The scientific name is recognizable everywhere, without conflict. Thus in the Flora articles we call for consistency (ie consistently using scientific names) because doing so actually supports the goals of recognizability and disambiguation.

However, in other topic areas, trying for consistency can actually conflict with the other goals. For example, We could call for consistency in the article titles for living people (perhaps mandating full names - "Jonathan Jones Doe" instead of "John Doe"). However, doing so would create a conflict with the goal of recognizability ("Bill Clinton" is more recognizable than "William Jefferson Clinton"). In such cases we almost always depreciate the goal of consistency in favor of recognizability.

To restate: Consistency is a goal, when it supports the other goals... but not when it conflicts with the others. Perhaps we need to make this clearer in the policy? Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency was used before June 2008 to justify naming conventions (guidelines) that recommended using a set of rules to emulate usage in reliable sources (as opposed to all sources), WP:NCROY and "Mary I of England" rather than more popular "Bloody Mary" being an example.

It was during the debate over flora that changes were made to the policy wording that introduced section currently called "Deciding on an article title" with the the bullet points (with out a proper discussion in my opinion). Consistency was put there because some editors at flora wanted to use consistency to justify placing all flora articles under scientific names even when other names based on reliable sources were clearly universal and more common. Since those days the flora guideline has been partially modified to use reliable sources, because of course the vast majority of cases the scientific name is the most common name in reliable sources. We have debated this particular bullet point several times, and I think that the last time I was involved was in August 2010. The wording then was:

• Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles.

and the suggested replacement:

• Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

-- PBS (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... what I was trying to do (since consistency has become an issue yet again), is to look at how we discuss consistency from a new perspective. Can we agree that Consistency is desirable when it supports the other goals... but not so desirable when it conflicts with the other goals? Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking along those lines I guess any objective "consistency" criterium will have to be based on "scope". For article titles of topics that belong to a same scope it may desirable to have some standard or consistency. Not rarely wikiprojects try to put that in their guidance. The problem is that most articles belong to several different scopes. Can we define something like a "primary scope(s)" for an article? If not then it will be difficult to aim for consistency within all scopes. Which scope will prevail? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Consistency is already covered in this brief section WP:MOSAT, with naming conventions for flora as given example. It states that it should only be used if there are "clear benefits" outweighing the use of common names. This suggests to me that the "consistency" criterium gets invoked only when there is an existing naming convention that pertains to the article.

Is it fair to say that the naming criteria appear in approximate order of importance? So "recognizability" and "naturalness" are most important, followed by "precision" and "conciseness". "Consistency" is least important and only used when there is a relevant naming convention. If that is the case, then I think we better reorder the sections to follow the same sequence. So "Common names" and "Neutrality in article titles" come first because they are connected mainly to "recognizability" and "naturalness". The "Precision and disambiguation" and "English-language title" sections should come next, as they relate to the "precision" and "conciseness" criteria. The "Explicit conventions" section would then be next. Would be more logical and comprehensive imo. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the intent was not to present them in order of importance (but I can see how people might think that). When we can not find a title that achieves all five of the criteria/principles/goals/whatever at once, then we must favor some over the others... but... which get favored and which get depreciated will be different from one article to another... it has to be this way, because each article/subject/topic will have specifics that are unique to that article/subject/topic. We are intentionally inconsistent when it comes to weighing these criteria against each other... to allow our editors flexibility to find the best title possible for a specific article/subject/topic. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's in conflict with what you said above: "Consistency is a goal, when it supports the other goals... but not when it conflicts with the others", which suggests prioritizing the criteria, at least such that consistency is prioritized lower than the other four. I agree with that. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we agree that "consistency" is a bit less important. I think the "precision" criterium is also a bit different from the rest. It actually makes sense to apply that one first. We first look for titles that are precise , "but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.". This will typically yield a list of suitable candidate titles that pass this precision criterium. And then we can look which of the candidate titles fits the other four criteria better. We do not try to maximize the "precision", if it identifies the topic unambiguously, then it is good enough. That makes this criterium different. After finding suitable candidate names we try to maximize recognizability, naturalness, conciseness and consistency. It would probably be useful if we could add some statements that clarify how to weigh these 5 criteria. It is not very evident from the current phrasing. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that we can clarify how to weigh the criteria. This is because every article title decision is unique, and has unique factors to consider. Choosing the most appropriate title for an article isn't something that can be broken down into a neat step-by-step process. It is (by necessity) a much more messy thing... a balancing act... in which we consider multiple factors, all at the same time. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then it is by definition ambiguous. And I thought we are supposed to fixed policies if they are ambiguous. If you are supposed to "weigh" five factors and there is no clear instruction whatsoever how to weigh them, then you can produce any outcomes by just changing the weighings. Then you can as well have no policy. And what are these "unique factors" to consider? If we can't put any words on it, then it is just up in the air... MakeSense64 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar you wrote above "Can we agree that Consistency is desirable when it supports the other goals... but not so desirable when it conflicts with the other goals?" That implies a hierarchy and rightly so, consistency is left over from before the alteration of the policy to base article titles on usage in reliable sources. See both Flora and NCROY from just before June 2008 and compare the wording wording to those naming conventions today. Back then both made common names (as then defined) the exceptions to the rule, now they do not. Consistency is only desirable when it supports the other goals, but can be misused to push a POV. Take the article Zurich as an example. When the article title was Zürich consistency with Zürich was used as a reason for not following common English language usage for Zurich Airport. Now that the article is at Zurich using that as an justification for writing a new article on Flughafen Zürich AG and naming it Flughafen Zurich AG simply on the grounds of consistency with the article name of Zurich would be just as harmful given the guidance given in the rest of this policy. Given the alteration to the meaning of common name in 2008, and the subsequent alteration of both Flora and NCROY, I think that the qualification I mentioned before, (or similar wording) would be a step forward in simplifying this policy. -- PBS (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "hierarchy" is probably the wrong word ... there certainly isn't any detectable hierarchy between the other four goals/criteria/principles (or rather there is, but the order of that hierarchy changes from one article to the next depending on the specifics of the case). Perhaps we should say that there is a difference between Consistency and the other four. Blueboar (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BB, your words, "Consistency is desirable when it supports the other goals... but not so desirable when it conflicts with the other goals", clearly and correctly imply a lower priority for consistency relative to the other four. That suggests a hierarchy, albeit a very simple one.

And I couldn't agree more with what MakeSense says above:

If you are supposed to "weigh" five factors and there is no clear instruction whatsoever how to weigh them, then you can produce any outcomes by just changing the weighings. Then you can as well have no policy.

In other words, ambiguous policy simply fosters an environment for jdli arguments, because just about any position can be justified with an appropriately rationalized interpretation of the ambiguous policy. That's exactly what we should be trying to avoid. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, here is an interesting "admin perspective", given in the context of a recent RfC : [2]. He seems to weigh "consistency" much higher than the rest. So, there we go. This just confirms that we can "weigh" the factors in any way we want, producing different outcomes. So what we get is something like the situation in which three people were asked to mix earth, water and fire without any further instructions. The first person simply mixed water with earth and threw a burning match in it, he got ordinary mud. The second one added a little earth in a lot of water and put it on the fire, he ended up making steam. The third person put a little water to the earth and heated it up, he produced ceramics. The outcomes differ completely depending on what "weighing" is given to each ingredient.

The only way to make a policy based on "weighing five goals" work in an objective way, is by stating some hierarchy or "sequence" that is to be taken. Ideally it should be clarified in a kind of "flowchart". Without it "weighing 5 goals" becomes a "carte blanche" that can be filled out in multiple ways. You just get mud, steam or ceramics depending on how you chose to "weigh". MakeSense64 (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you would weigh consistency of process, or consistency of whose weights matter most, over the more thoughtful approach that we've been using for years. Why do you want the policy to work in an "objective" way, when the problem space is clearly very subjective? Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since my comments elsewhere have been invoked here, I thought I'd weigh-in. Consistency is not a vague thing. When a locus of anything is viewed collectively, there is either consistency among the members or there is not. Agreed, that the degree of consistency is always up for debate, but at some point the relationship between members becomes inconsistent. Consistency is clearly defined by these words: steadfast adherence to the same principles, course, form, etc.: There is consistency in his pattern of behavior. or agreement, harmony, or compatibility, especially correspondence or uniformity among the parts of a complex thing: consistency of colors throughout the house. I don't think this discussion is as much about weighting the different titling criteria, but instead is about reaching the best balance among the criteria for any given title. If one foreign name uses diacritics and other does not when both are within the same locus of members, those titles are inconsistent in form. If we want consistency to be one of our title criteria, then we should seek to craft guidelines and naming conventions that provide for consistency and not allow inconsistency. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... reaching the best balance among the criteria for any given title". But because "best balance" is almost totally subjective, that's just an invitation for JDLI arguments, or everyone mixing earth, water, and fire in a way that happens to favor the title they prefer for, as far as we know, never stated but totally irrational reasons. Given that in 99% of these cases the encyclopedia quality and reader experience is entirely unaffected by the title being one or another of those typically being considered, what is the point of all this? Why not just make the criteria less vague and more definitive? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree wholeheartedly with Why not just make the criteria less vague and more definitive? If Consistency is one of the criteria, then there should be nothing vague about what it means while recognizing that at some point ignoring it will allow the persistence of article titles that are Inconsistent in form with others in their membership group. If we are willing to allow inconsistency on a regular basis, it shouldn't be a criteria. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much as it may be desirable to alter the whole section, I think that is too larger change to contemplate at the moment. However I do think that we can clarify this one bullet point and I still think that the former compromise wording would be an improvement over the current wording: "Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles." -- PBS (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first part about being clear that consistency is lower priority than other criteria but if we're trying to make the criteria less vague, the second part doesn't do that for me. What do we mean by "giving similar articles similar titles"? Similar in form? Similar in word count? Similar in syntax? Similar in wording? Use the same wording and form but clarify critical differences? Jojalozzo 00:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually fundamentally disagree with the wording from this aspect. If we are going to allow inconsistency based on the subjective application of other criteria, then we don't need consistency as a criteria because its meaningless. If consistency is not a criteria, then most naming conventions have no basis in policy, because naming conventions are all about establishing consistency within a broad topic area. MOS is all about consistency of form, but the wording as is basically says editors can ignore MOS and create titles that are inconsistent in form if they can justify that inconsistency with other criteria. Something is flawed here. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well...Yes. When the other criteria/goals/principles (such as usage in reliable sources) indicate that a given title should be used, editors should ignore the MOS and project naming criteria. Doing so does not negate the MOS or Conventions - it simply means that the specific title in question is an exception to the MOS or project naming Convention. Once you realize that the MOS and project conventions are not inflexible "one size fits all" rules... once you accept that both the MOS and the project naming conventions can have exceptions... you realize that there is no flaw. Blueboar (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two ideas emerge from the comment above. One, if exceptions are allowed, especially exceptions based on subjective (not objective) opinions of a few editors, that create obvious inconsistency, then Consistency shouldn't be a criteria in the policy. Two, then the question as to whether exceptions to the MOS/Naming conventions should be stated in the guidelines or should they just be ad hoc as your comments seem to suggest. Policies and guidelines that can arbitrary ignored through the subjective intrepretation of other vague policies and guidelines are essentially useless. I have no issue with there being exceptions to MOS/Naming conventions, but they should be objectively spelled out rather than whimsically created out of thin air. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting a subjective, ad hoc application... the exceptions are objective... they are based on concrete things like usage in reliable sources, brevity, and the need for disambiguation. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be sematics, but what I am suggesting is that creating these exceptions in a transitory RM process is subjective and ad hoc as there is no lasting record of the exception in policy/guideline pages. It allows any editor or clique of editors to subjectively interpret policy in an RM, even if those interpretations are contrary to other policies and guidelines. That's not the way to employ policies and guidelines designed to help editors build a better encyclopedia. It merely sustains vague, unclear and inconsistent policy application. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit clash with BB] Yes but no :-) Consistency goes back to the days when common name meant the common name in all sources, not common name in reliable sources. So editors who edited groups of articles such as ships, flora and royalty made up rules to try to emulate reliable sources, the best example of which is WP:NCROY. Now that the policy states common name means usage in reliable sources guidelines such as NCROY have been altered to first look at common names, but consistency is still useful as a supplement to Naturalness For example I know that there was a James II of Scotland and a James II of England, usage in reliable sources are not of much help in describing the "name that editors naturally use to link from other articles" because many of them are written about in histories in which context makes disambiguation details in those texts superfluous, eg Historical dictionary of the British empire: "James II fled to exile in France. A convention Parliament then formally offered the crown to Protestants William and Mary." So in consistency can help with deciding what style of disambiguation to use. Where consistency is a hindrance is in arguments of the type that says ignore usage in reliable sources and name him William or Wilhelm or whatever because that is the article title his the biography of his father/son or some other person is under, because once we ignore usage in reliable sources and follow our own rules we are breaching V and NOR. That is why I think the proposed wording will clarify the use of consistency and it allows guidelines such as NCROY to enhance this policy without this policy contradicting that supplementary guidance. -- PBS (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that is how article titling (and Wikipedia in general) works... article titles are chosen by consensus (given the limitation of Wikipedia's programming). We can say that, when reaching a consensus, editors should take into account the various goals/principles. However, we also need to acknowledge that any specific article title may have unique considerations (circumstances that are specific to that individual topic, article and title) that will affect that consensus... Sometimes those unique considerations will indicate that we should downplay (or even outright ignore) one or more of the goals/principles. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the author of this section and B2C. I think Consistency does and should have a greater weight than some of the other goals. I've been busy with other things, but I had assumed that the consensus that the 5 goals were of approximately equal weight wouldn't be altered without a centralized discussion. I agree that consistency is not good where it violates all of the other goals, and, if a name meets all the other goals, but is not consistent with articles on similar topics, it probably should be used. However, the same is true of all the goals; why single out "consistency". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up on what Mike Cline said : "If we are willing to allow inconsistency on a regular basis, it shouldn't be a criteria." I think that makes sense. But, using "consistency" as the main criterium is also not as easy as it sounds. Because most articles belong to more than one "membership group". A given article can easily fall within the scope of 3 or more different Wikiprojects, and all the naming conventions (or naming guidance) they have put together will not necessarily point in the same direction. Deciding on an article title will then become a "voting contest".

Personally, I would do away with the "consistency" criterium and just state that: "naming conventions may apply". Not all our naming conventions are equal. We have "rigid" naming conventions and more "fluid" ones. Some are more like policies and enforced before anything else is considered (e.g. we would not consider any article title in Cyrillic), while others naming conventions are weighed as one factor among many others (so these conventions will by definition not be used consistently). Sometimes our naming conventions have inconsistency baked in. Take our naming conventions for Ireland-related articles WP:MOS-IE, neither English nor Irish names are used consistently, so this convention is consistently inconsistent.
My first suggestion to simplify the naming criteria would be to merge "recognizability" with "naturalness" and just call it "commonness". We are not writing wp articles about something if it is not mentioned in sources, so whatever our sources are writing about, they must be giving it a name. The most commonly used name or word will almost always be the most recognizable and natural term.
My second suggestion would be to merge "precise" with "concise", because we also clearly use them as a connected pair. We can often be more precise by using a longer name or description, but a shorter title is more practical. So we look for an optimum between two vectors that point in opposite directions.
My third suggestion is to drop the "consistency" criterium and replace it with "naming conventions may apply". So we can get a flowchart that show us what to do. E.g.:

• (1) If one (or more) naming convention applies, then try to follow the naming convention(s). If the outcome is not clear then use #2 to select the best candidate.
• (2) If no naming conventions apply (or if they disagree) then weigh "commonness" with "precise-concise".

Comments welcome. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally like the thrust of this because it leads to a simplification of titling policy and supporting guidelines. It would also eventually lead to the elimination of some of the gross inconsistency we now have across titling policy and guidelines. Commonname is good policy, and if we’d be a little more creative in our thinking, we could make a much easier policy to operationalize. I also like the idea of naming conventions for membership groups of articles. If naming conventions are articulated well, they can deal with disambiguation schemes, MOS issues as well as reinforce overall titling and other WP policies instead of having these guidelines scattered across multiple policy and guideline pages. As Makessense says, many articles may fall within the purview of multiple naming conventions, so some local judgment will always play in this. That said, by looking at titles from a broad membership perspective, instead of one article at a time, we should be able to eliminate a lot of the ridiculous and wasteful discussions we now have. A discussion, no matter how contentious about a naming convention has far more benefit to the encyclopedia and community in the long run that the same level of effort on one article title. Once a naming convention is essentially agreed upon for any given membership group, the entire community has a much broader point of reference to interpret and apply a title decision to any given article. I certainly hope this idea has legs. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the purpose of the policy to reduce/eliminate "ridiculous and wasteful discussions", or is the purpose of the policy to explain to editors how to choose the most appropriate titles for their articles? Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great question and I would answer yes to both. Volunteer editor energy is the revenue and only resource the community has to build and improve the encyclopedia. That resource is not infinite. When its wasted, regardless of why, it is wasted and cannot be recovered. Good policy should promote, support and especially not impede the most productive use of our volunteer resource. So that means that policy should be focused on eliminating wasteful, unneccessary discussion as well as helping editors get titles right the first time (which in fact helps accomplish the first goal as well). --Mike Cline (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike... No one forces our volunteer editors to participate in RM discussions. Most (if not all) of the editors who participate in such discussions do so because they want to discuss such things. Their energy is not wasted... it is freely given. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, we have different perspectives on this. I see volunteers as a resource to be used wisely to build and improve the encyclopedia and help WM achieve its strategic goals. Others see WP as a playground (metaphorically) for their own enjoyment and as long as the playground provides enjoyment there is little concern on their part as to whether their participation is contributing to the strategic goals of the community or not. Having worked with many volunteer organizations, volunteer energy can indeed be wasted, no matter how freely the volunteer gives of their time. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that you can also lose your volunteers, especially when things seem to be changed and decided on a rather arbitrary basis. Providing volunteers with clear and unambiguous rules of "the game" is an important part in letting them know that their time is being respected. I often see questions like "what is the harm or loss when...". Well, what you may lose is editors.. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that creating overly restrictive "rules of the game"... rules that force ridiculous and unnecessary consistency on an article title would be more likely to lose us editors. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there always a presumption that any constructive change to our titling policy that was intended to simplify and eliminate inconsistency (in policies and guidelines) would result in overly restrictive policy? I don't believe there is any significant evidence in the history of discussion on these pages that anyone is pushing for overly restrictive policy. I don't think anyone wants to create titles with a cookie cutter, but having a multi-tool that everyone could use and generate good results would be a good thing. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{ec} I will agree that too much aim for consistency can lead us into an "overgeneralization" trap, in which we force consistency unto a topic just on the basis of it belonging to a certain "membership group".

But "clear" rules do not need to be "overly restrictive". Clear rules can also be less restrictive. Generally, many volunteers will still agree to work with restrictive rules as long as these rules are "clear" and up front. And if they don't like a restrictive rule then they are free to work on something else. What volunteers really don't like is when they are working on the basis of a rule, only to see somebody else come out to criticize or even undo their work on the basis of some other rule that was found elsewhere. WP has already become very balkanized in that regard. That burns out editors more efficiently than anything else. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An I would be solidly in favor of having a few clear rules. The question is whether consistency should be one of those rules. I think consistency makes for a nice "rule of thumb" goal, but it makes for a piss poor "rule". There are too many situations where the most appropriate title will be inconsistent with others in the topic area. 16:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As Blueboar mentioned earlier, there are "unique considerations" that may change the equation for specific articles or type of articles. That is one of the reasons why our current naming criteria are not more specific and objective. But these peculiarities for each article or type of article can be much better dealt with on the level of various Wikiprojects trying to create naming conventions for their field, since they know the peculiarities of their field. Once we put this put off to the naming conventions, we can have a more simplified and objective "broad" naming policy that doesn't require us to weigh five factors/goals (with nobody able to explain how to weigh them). A simplified procedure that leans more heavily on naming conventions will also be more easily understood by (new) editors wondering how to title their article. When in doubt, they can consult the naming conventions (or contact the wikiproject) most directly related to the topic of their new article, and otherwise chose a name based on "commonness" vs "precise-concise". In most cases they will find a good title.

The current naming criteria try to say too much (or include too much) and as a result end up saying little or nothing (leaving it wide open for all kind of interpretation). Sometimes (if not always) simplified criteria (in combination with common sense) will work better than criteria that try to cover every base or case. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like this thinking. If indeed we started down this road, we could actually provide some guidance to projects to address all the relevant titling issues—MOS, disambiguation, commonname, etc. in their naming convention(s). Of course the substance of the naming convention would be contextual to the membership group, but any convention would always address all the relevant title policy interpretations in a consistent way. In a way we could create an MOS for naming conventions to ensure editors could easily interpret any naming convention they consulted. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also like Makes' proposal because it simplifies the guidance and eliminates distinctions which we've been unable to clearly define or implement. However, if we are going to give precedence to local naming conventions then, like Mike, I think we need policy for ensuring the widest possible involvement in determining such conventions to avoid local consensus issues (see What's comment below) and to ensure that common/precise-concise continues to play a significant role in the determination of local conventions. Jojalozzo 16:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that advice from a WikiProject is just like advice from any other editor, not an official coomunity guideline (unless they made a WP:PROPOSAL and the community adopted it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I think if we could develop an MOS for Naming conventions that was supported by a simplified WP:AT and covered all the titling considerations, then projects could take the lead in developing sound naming conventions that would eventually evolve into Wikipedia level conventions. I can envision a day where WP:AT is but a few paragraphs long and editors are referred to a long list of naming conventions to review in deciding a title. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to go that route, I think it was Blueboar who a while back suggested that the only policy is that titles have to be unique within the limits of the technology. I might add that titles should not exhibit undue POV bias. Beyond that, the precise form a particular title takes is a matter of convention. older ≠ wiser 12:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV names like Boston Massacre and Patriot (American Revolution) (Now theres's a NPOV name with a NPOV dab extension!)? Common name and NPOV do not always make comfortable bedfellows. I think we need to keep this conversation focused on consistency. -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I did qualify POV bias with undue. My main point is for policy fundamentalists -- that the only absolute is that titles have to be unique, everything else is a matter of convention. older ≠ wiser 23:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, uniqueness of the title is a key point. I find it interesting how some editors weigh in on that aspect. Watching how an individual can support the ambiguity of a title and yet argue for an article to be moved there knowing that this does not fix the problem. Or argue for consistency in naming when they want to be consistent with a handful of articles and inconsistent with thousands. On one hand we don't want to write something that causes confusion, but then we don't want something that is a formula that decides for us. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor and I disagree about whether Public Administration or Public administration should be the main article and the other a redirect. I assume the regulars here are intimately familiar with this section of the MOS so perhaps you can weigh in and help us settle the issue. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted because (a) it was a cut-and-paste move, and (b) per WP:CAPS, MOS:CAPS, etc. it seems pretty clear to me that it should not be capitalised. Jenks24 (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been discussed before, but why does wp software not support multiple titles for articles? This would reduce the discussions and resources that now go into RM. It would also serve more various audiences. Here is how it could work:
We now use several redirects already. If there is more than one acceptable title for an article then they could be added in the very beginning of the article in a hidden template like {{alttitles|title1|title2|title3|...}}. When somebody searches for an article on one of the alternative titles, or accesses the page through a redirect, then render the article with the title of their own choice. Of course, redirects we make for common typos should not be used as alternative titles. So an "alternative title" would get rendered as the title of the article only if it is listed in the "alttitles" template.
An additional benefit would be that for example even Cyrillic or Chinese names can be added in the alttitles list, and when a person comes to wp looking up that name, then he would see that name as the title of the article. Right now our titling policy states that we put the interests of a general audience before those of specialists. With this suggestion we could serve both the general audience AND the specialists. Everybody happy. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways, we already support multiple titles... see Wikipedia:Redirect. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this idea would take it one step further: display the name used in the redirect as the title of the page (provided it was not a redirect made for a common typo). Let's take our article about Munich, why not display "München" as the title of the article whenever somebody visits the page through this redirect: München, or when somebody came to search wp for "München"? What is the need to push just one of the alternative names as the title? It wouldn't take much change in the wp software code to do this. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem a great idea to me. If we constantly use "Munich" in the article in question, why should we display "München" or something else as the title? I think this would be likely to confuse the reader unnecessarily. mgeo talk 21:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Alternative renderings of the name are normally mentioned or listed in the lede of the article anyway. Readers will understand that only one of those names can be used in the text (although I have seen articles where different sections use different alternative name depending on the context). This is not a print encyclopedia, which means that we have more flexibility in how we render the article before it is sent to the reader. It can be more customized. To customize the title according to the reader's search would take no more than a few lines of code. So, why not do it? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: this is one of those good ideas that should not be implemented. With some exceptions, there should be one name used primarily throughout the article; the first paragraph should give major alternative names and if necessary alternative names should be explained. Anything else is confusing. Proper implementation would probably not be easy. --Boson (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it breaks the wiki model, where every title is just a text file. You no longer have the ability to click "edit" on any redirect and write up an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the redirect is from a misspelling, would you really want that as the title? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It already says "(Redirected from München)", although the fine print could be made bigger. Art LaPella (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on a second thought, this could be an interesting option in case we have several English equivalent names (like "colour" and "color", "organisation" and "organization" and so on). In this case I guess there wouldn't be any confusion among the readers. But IMHO it shouldn't be used for cases like "Munich" and "München" because these are not strictly equivalent (i.e. "Munich" is standard English, "München" is not). mgeo talk 00:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given what's happening with algorithms today, the amount of resistance here to coming up with an algorithm for deciding article titles is disheartening.

Sean Gourley is co-founder and CTO of Quid, a company that gets hired by governments and business to create algorithms. He says, "From an algorithms perspective, this is a great time to be alive. Algorithms are just frolicking in the mountains of data that they can play with."

Gourley uses algorithms to predict insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan and help banks map developing markets for new technologies. As an experiment for NPR, he maps the development of the Occupy Wall Street movement. He uses algorithms to sort through about 40,000 blogs and articles written since the movement began and group similar ideas together.

link. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and there are also algorithms that will write articles for you. Maybe we can leverage that to take up the slack as we lose humans from WP. Dicklyon (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born2 may be disheartened... but I'm not :>) ... I embrace the fact that article titles can't be done by algorithm. The simple fact is, article titles are created through consensus... and consensus is messy, often inconsistent, and definitely not something that can be broken down into an algorithm. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Blueboar. But then the algorithms B2C's reference seems to describe are along the lines of helping humans to make sense out of mountains of data and not the sort of turn-a-crank-and-out-pops-the-perfect-title sort of algorithm B2C seems to pine for. older ≠ wiser 23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, Dick, algorithms cannot be created for writing articles. Not in any practical sense. But algorithms can be easily created for deciding titles. In fact, while none of our articles are written by algorithm, most of our titles are already decided by algorithm. There is no comparison.

Blueboar, title decision making for controversial titles is currently messy because such titles are decided by consensus. But the vast majority are not messy because they're decided by algorithm.

We currently use the following algorithm to decide article titles, and most titles are determined by the first objective part:

IF article topic clearly has a name that is most commonly used in reliable sources and that does not conflict with other uses, THEN

// Objective part

use most common name of topic as article title

ELSE

// Subjective part

Apply WP:AT and WP:D as best as you can.

// Messy consensus part

IF conflict THEN DecideByConsensus() END-IF

END-ELSE

I think WP:COMMONNAME is sound policy for a general encyclopedia. However, as generally understood and applied within WP, it has failings not entirely attributable to the Common name policy itself. Its first and probably greatest failing is the lack of consistent, replicatable methodology that indeed determines the common name of any topic. The current methodology as seen in many RMs is very ad hoc and loaded with the biases of the editors pushing one common name over another. Its second failing (not of its own making) is trying to equate common names with accurate or correct names. Correctness and especially accuracy demands a solid point of reference or ground truth if you will. When you introduce cultural, political, language and other biases into a discussion about accuracy or correctness (each editor will view something a being accurate only based on their view of what the real ground truth is), what is common to one editor is not to another. Common name does not care about accuracy or correctness, it cares only about what is most prevalent in all reliable sources, sources that have not been culled to selective remove or deal with the inherent cultural, political and language biases we face in the WP community. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]