Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:04, 29 July 2012

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

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.

WP:PRECISION does not respect naming criteria. WP:NCDAB does.

When we speak about disambiguating titles, obviously we must do it in two equally important pages:

1. WP:Disambiguation (section WP:NCDAB)
2. WP:Article titles (section WP:PRECISION)

WP:PRECISION states that Natural disambiguation should be preferred to Parenthetical disambiguation. On the contrary:

1. WP:NCDAB states that there's no hard rule for that choice.
2. There are several sentences in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA which in some cases would suggest to choose Parenthetical disambiguation rather than Natural disambiguation, even when natural disambiguation exists.

For instance, we recently renamed Musical mode to Mode (music), according to a general naming criterion: consistency (see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA). Indeed, Mode (music) is consistent with other articles in the same disambiguation page:

Mode

• Mode (music)
• Mode (statistics)
• Mode (literature)
• Mode (computer interface)

Similarly,

Scale

• Scale (music) (<-- new title requested for Musical scale)
• Scale (string instruments)
• Scale (album)
• Scale (descriptive set theory)
• Scale (ratio)
• Scale (map)
• Scale (social sciences)
• Scale (physics)

Also, we should allow for the possibility that, in some cases, editors may reach consensus about the fact that "Parenthetical disambiguation" is more "natural" than "Natural disambiguation" (forgive me for the apparent paradox). Indeed, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says: "Naturalness. Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with", and readers are in some cases used to and hence "likely to" look for parenthetical disambiguation.

For instance, Mode (music) is in my opinion more "natural" than Musical mode. In most encyclopedias and dictionaries, people are used to look for "Mode", not for "Musical mode", when they want to know the meaning of the word "mode" in music. For instance, see:

• Mode in Encyclopedia Britannica (first item is Mode (music))
• Mode (point 5) in Webster's online dictionary.

(Scale (point 6) would be an even more relevant example)

I conclude that WP:NCDAB is consistent with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, while WP:PRECISION is not. Therefore, I strongly suggest to fix WP:PRECISION. This includes copying the following sentence from WP:NCDAB to WP:PRECISION:

"If there is a choice between using natural and parenthetical disambiguation, such as Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics), there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other. The choice between them is made by consensus, taking into account general naming criteria (e.g., consistency with the pattern used for similar articles)."

In short, I suggest to make a specific criterion (WP:PRECISION) consistent with the relevant general criteria (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA), and to make two sections about the same policy (WP:NCDAB and WP:PRECISION) consistent with each other.

Paolo.dL (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I view WP:NCDAB a reflection of this guideline, while I agree they should not contradict each other. From a disambiguation perspective, it does not matter how any non-primary topic article is disambiguated from the base name, as long as it is disambiguated somehow; indeed, from a purely disambiguation-project point of view, I'd expect that parenthetical disambiguation would be preferred to natural disambiguation: you've identified the best possible title for a topic article, but you can't use that title because the topic isn't primary, so you simply pop on the appropriate parenthetical. It's the topic-specific lens that lends preference for natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation. The choice of qualified titles (natural or parenthetical) is then up to the WP:Article titles and the extensive hierarchy of genre-specific naming conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

At the same time, people more interested in disambiguation are likely to view WP:PRECISION as a reflection of WP:NCDAB. Indeed, WP:NCDAB was more complete than WP:PRECISION: the comma-separated method was not even listed in WP:PRECISION before I copied it from WP:NCDAB. The same topic (title disambiguation) is seen from two different and equally important points of view:

1. disambiguation criteria, and
2. naming criteria.

Paolo.dL (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

More interested in disambiguation than I? I suppose it's possible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

:-). If the disambiguation standpoint tends to favour parenthetic (as you say), while WP:Article titles favours natural, isn't it wise for a fair policy to allow both with equal freedom, only limited by general criteria such as WP:Consensus andWP:NAMINGCRITERIA? Let's be equidistant from the two opposite points of view. Paolo.dL (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, that's not what I meant. I meant that if it were just a dab question, why not go with the parenthetical all the time? Solves ambiguity, and we're off to other tasks. But it's not a dab question; the only reason dab exists is because WP technically cannot have two articles at the same title. Dab says, let them be dabbed. Article titles (and the hierarchy of naming conventions) say, we'll do so thusly. And it's done. Dab project should be agnostic as to how the articles are titled (or formatted, or kept, or deleted) and instead concern itself with how disambiguation pages are titled (or formatted, or kept, or deleted). The main overlap IMO between the two is when article titling specifies title X, and there's ambiguity, but there's a question of whether the topic at hand is the primary topic for X. If the topic is primary for X (by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), then we're set, if not, it's back to the titling conventions to figure out what to title it instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation is what people expects in some cases (see my examples). So, it is wiser for us to be neutral in WP:PRECISION. Parenthetical and comma-separated disambiguation can be both natural! Your recent edit summary in WP:DAB ("comma-separated dabbing seems to be a type of natural dabbing") brings you close to this conclusion.
Paolo.dL (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

About consistency (see definition in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA). below, JHunterJ called "foolish consistency" a controversial application of the consistency criterion. In that case, I agree. However, here I showed that it is not foolish to consistently use a given disambiguation method (either natural, parenthetical or comma-separated), whithin the list of articles appearing in a given disambiguation list, such as Mode, Scale, Transposition, Interval.

About naturalness (see definition in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA). "Natural" and "non-natural" disambiguation is a controversial distinction. Parenthetical disambiguation is in some cases "natural" for most encyclopedias and dyctionaries (e.g. see Mode in Encyclopedia Britannica), and hence expected by readers.

Example. In a recent discussion in Talk:Musical scale most editors agreed that the article title should be Scale (music) because parenthetical disambiguation is both natural (people are "likely to search" for articles disambiguated with parentheses) and consistent with other titles listed in Scale.

Paolo.dL (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages-construct of a parenthetical (music) might be expected by someone familiar with Misplaced Pages, but that doesn't make it "natural". If independent reliable sources might use the term "Scale (music)" in running prose, then it would be "natural". -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

See definition of "naturalness" given in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. It is controversial that a (disambiguated or not) title is "natural" only when used "in running prose", unless you use WP:PRECISION as a dogma. When used "in running prose", a natural title (a title that people are "likely to search" is both natural and prosaic. So we can have:

• (Natural and) Prosaic (non-separated disambiguation)
• (Natural and) Parenthetic (separated disambiguation)
• (Natural and) comma-separated (separated disambiguation, of course)

Of course, non-natural titles should not be used, even if they are prosaic. This simple adjustment makes WP:PRECISION consistent with both WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:NCDAB. Paolo.dL (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Paolo, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. "Scale" is a natural title. However, it requires disambiguation. "Scale (music)" is not a natural title -- no one would deliberately use that form unless required to for purposes of disambiguating from other senses of the term. older ≠ wiser 00:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think his point is that musical scale is also something about which "no one would deliberately use that form unless required to for purposes of disambiguating from other senses of that term". That is, even though it doesn't have parentheses, it's no more "natural". The general point is that "natural" and "no parentheses" is not a simple equivalence, and non-parentheses forms should not necessarily be preferred over parenthetic forms. Now, how to explain this clearly in the policy? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh? "Musical scale" is a natural language contruct and is commonly used in a variety of contexts as a simple google search shows. "Scale (music)" is an artificial construct that no one would use apart from exceptional situations. older ≠ wiser 02:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't know which is a better title for the article (and as noted below, no one asserts that one type of disambiguation always is preferred), but to my knowledge, the distinction between 'natural disambiguation' and 'parenthetical disambiguation' has never been "controversial". —David Levy 02:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, we do prefer natural disambiguation (e.g. Electric light over Light (electric), Cheque over Check (finance), Apartment over Flat (domicile), Portland, Maine over Portland (Maine) or Portland (Maine city)).

Of course, this isn't indiscriminate. If a particular instance of natural disambiguation is relatively uncommon or unusual, it shouldn't be used purely to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. Perhaps that's what we need to mention. —David Levy 02:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Paolo:
You're relying on an inapplicable connotation of 'natural'. You claim that the distinction is "controversial", and this would be true if your interpretation of the terminology were the one intended. But I've never encountered it before.
When we refer to 'natural disambiguation', we don't mean 'the most logical choice'. We mean 'a type arising outside Misplaced Pages's page titling scheme and similar'.
I strongly object to your replacement of 'natural disambiguation' with 'running-prose disambiguation', which makes the explanation much less clear for the sake of eliminating wording that doesn't appear to be causing widespread misunderstanding.
If anything, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA should be modified to use a term other than 'naturalness' (perhaps 'commonness', 'prevalence' or 'predominance'). But given the absence of confusion, I'm not sure that even this is necessary. —David Levy 02:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a terminological problem, in my opinion. But most importantly, let's not forget that there is a contradiction between WP:PRECISION and WP:NCDAB. There's a lot of people who thinks that WP:PRECISION should not express a preference for "natural" over parenthetical disambiguation, and that this preference sometimes conflicts with the consistency criterion as in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. I am not the only one! I am here to represent those who wrote (without my help) WP:NCDAB, and a large number of editors who in several articles preferred parenthetical to "natural" disambiguation, contrary to what WP:PRECISION suggests (e.g. Interval (music), Scale (music), Mode (music) instead of Musical interval, Musical scale, Musical mode). People often does not care about fixing policies. But they will appreciate if we fix them. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a terminological problem, in my opinion.

Who, other than you, has the terminology confused?

But most importantly, let's not forget that there is a contradiction between WP:PRECISION and WP:NCDAB.

For the most part, they simply focus on different aspects. We do generally prefer natural disambiguation, but this isn't a hard rule, so both pages are essentially correct. We probably could improve them by harmonizing some of the wording, thereby conveying more details in each location.

There's a lot of people who thinks that WP:PRECISION should not express a preference for "natural" over parenthetical disambiguation,

Who are these people? You've cited instances in which parenthetical disambiguation was deemed preferable, but these aren't indicative of opposition to the policy (which doesn't require that natural disambiguation always be favored).

and that this preference sometimes conflicts with the consistency criterion as in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.

When dealing with millions of articles, such conflicts are inevitable and don't necessarily indicate that one of the rules is wrong and must be changed. As Jenks24 explained to you on his talk page, it's normal to discuss a particular application and determine which course of action makes the most sense (as was done in this instance).

Our rules are intended to cover most cases. They aren't set in stone; there always will be exceptions, which is fine. You're attempting to solve a nonexistent problem. —David Levy 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Denying the problem makes no sense. Before joining this discussion, JHunterJ started a parallel discussion on what you call a "nonexistent problem": WT:DA#Preference for natural disambiguation. In Talk:Scale (music)#Requested move to "Scale (music)", editors discussed about the above mentioned contradictions. WP:PRECISION says:

• Parenthetical disambiguation: If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses.

Discussing about the existence of the problem is a waste of time. Paolo.dL (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. I noted above that it would be advisable to harmonize the wording of WP:PRECISION and WP:NCDAB for greater clarity. I don't think that anyone disputes that.

By "a nonexistent problem", I was referring to instances in which our general preference for natural disambiguation clashes with our general goal of achieving consistency. You seem to believe that this is indicative of a problem with the policy, and I'm explaining that such conflicts are normal, unavoidable, and routinely resolved via discussion/consensus. The examples that you cited serve as evidence of that. —David Levy 11:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "natural" as opposed to "parenthetical"

We should at least agree that the word "natural" is used in WP:PRECISION to mean: commonly used in running (English) text. Of course, not as commonly as the ambiguous name, which is defined as the "most commonly used name".
Notice that, as stated above by others, we mean "commonly used in running text" (or "running prose"), and not "commonly used as a title in textbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias". Otherwise, Scale (music) would be natural, as I proved above, and as stated by a large majority of editors in Talk:Scale (music).
Sometimes, a "naturally" disambiguated title consists of an alternative name which does not require disambiguation (e.g., Apartment instead of Flat (domicile)), and sometimes it contains an additional term (e.g., English language instead of English). The additional term may be:

• An adjective placed before the ambiguous name (e.g. "Electric", in Electric light)
• The name of a cathegory or class, placed after the ambiguous name (e.g. "people" in English people)

JHunterJ, Born2cycle, older≠wiser, David Levy, can we at least agree about this? Paolo.dL (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We use the term "natural disambiguation" in reference to terminology arising naturally during the course of ordinary English communication. This can include speech; it isn't limited to running text or writing in general. —David Levy 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paolo.dL, the question of whether parenthetical disambiguation is preferable to an alternative "natural language" title is something to be determined on a case by case basis. But in general, I think there is a preference for natural disambiguation in article titles. I do not think you proved that "scale (music)" is a natural language title -- you may have convinced editors that it is a better title, but it is in no way a natural language title. older ≠ wiser 16:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Since we do not easily understand each other, I would appreciate if we could start by reaching consensus about a non-ambiguous definition for the term "natural" as used in WP:PRECISION. Can we say "commonly used in running English?" (running text or running speach), as opposed to "commonly used in titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks, or textbook chapters"? As I wrote above, "commonly used in English" is ambiguous and may lead to the conclusion that parenthetical is natural in this context (English used for encyclopedia titles), or at least that titles such as "Musical scale" or "Musical mode" are not natural in this context (as they are rarely used as titles). Bkonrad, you may have missed the word "Otherwise" in my comment above (14:49, 29 June 2012). Paolo.dL (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there evidence that the terminology has caused widespread confusion? You keep trying to clarify it via the use of descriptions that apparently make sense to you but aren't helpful to the rest of us. (For example, "running English" is unfamiliar in the above context; it appears to be a billiards term.) —David Levy 18:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what either "natural" or "running" English might be. Something to do with "reliable sources"? To call something "natural" isn't exactly NPOV, since it assumes by default that everything else is "unnatural". Wouldn't want anything unnatural, now, nosiree. Unnatural acts might even be illegal, who knows? I don't think "running English" is a pool term though: the linked article refers to "putting English on the ball", referring to the practice of getting the cue ball to hit off center to produce a spin, and therefore a curved trajectory. Very hard to do with American pool balls; they're heavier than the British ones. Maybe "natural" is meant to refer to conversational English. You don't usually pronounce punctuation, but I wouldn't go so far as to call parentheses unnatural. After all, And Yet It Moves was differentiated from And yet it moves solely with capital letters, and you certainly don't pronounce those. Neotarf (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the above appears to have been written in jest, but as previously noted, we're referring to neither written nor spoken English exclusively.

"Portland, Maine" constitutes natural disambiguation because that formatting is commonly used in ordinary writing. Conversely, "Portland (Maine)" and "Portland (Maine city)" are not. —David Levy 19:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

David, since you can't seem to marshal any actual, you know, reasons against what I just wrote, and since you can't seem to pinpoint what a "natural" title is supposed to be, I take it that you agree with me and that your above comment is written in jest. Neotarf (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd already explained what "natural disambiguation" means (and provided several examples), and I addressed the on-topic portion of your message. Are you waiting for me to discuss unnatural acts and the differences between American and British cue sports? —David Levy 04:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf, I have created much of the substantive pool and billiards content on Misplaced Pages and I am an expert in real life. Running english (not normally capitalized in this context) is an incredibly common term. It is the counterpart to reverse english and refers to sidespin that widens a ball angle when it hits a rail. Sorry, but what you've described about American pool balls is utterly wrong. In fact the larger and much heavier billiards balls used in carom are much easier to impart english to and with accuracy than smaller and lighter balls.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

If you say "running english" is a pool term, I'm willing to take your word for it, but it doesn't appear in the linked article. And billiards is pretty specialized, not the sort of thing you find in the local neighborhood bar, at least not in my neck of the woods. At any rate, it doesn't seem like a very useful term for disambiguation. Neotarf (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "natural" as opposed to "parenthetical", continued (arbitrary break)

David, indulge me, please. Neotarf's contribution shows that I am not the only editor who thinks that the use of the term "natural" in WP:PRECISION is somewhat questionable. However, my main point is not about terminology (see my comment above posted at 20:34, 29 June).

This subsection is meant to be just a small tile of a large mosaic. In order to continue the discussion without being hindered by repeated terminological misunderstandings on both sides, I would appreciate if we could first agree about this:

• "Natural" disambiguation, as currently defined in WP:PRECISION, means "commonly used in ordinary written or spoken English", as opposed to "commonly used in titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks, or textbook chapters".

Paolo.dL (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf's contribution shows that I am not the only editor who thinks that the use of the term "natural" in WP:PRECISION is somewhat questionable.

As noted above, Neotarf's message appears to be primarily jocular.

However, my main point is not about terminology (see my comment above posted at 20:34, 29 June).

See my reply, posted at 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC).

In order to continue the discussion without being hindered by repeated terminological misunderstandings on both sides,

I've seen no evidence of terminological misunderstanding by anyone other than you (no offense intended).

I would appreciate if we could first agree about this: "Natural" disambiguation, as currently defined in WP:PRECISION, means "commonly used in ordinary written or spoken English", as opposed to "commonly used in titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks, or textbook chapters".

That seems accurate (though titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks or textbook chapters might also contain the same names/formatting). —David Levy 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would not necessarily exclude "commonly used in titles of encyclopedia articles, textbooks, or textbook chapters". It may be necessary to consider whether such works use some specialized conventions, but that would be true of most other specialized usages as distinguished from common, generalized usage. older ≠ wiser 22:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

David may be trying to laugh off my comments, but "natural" is in fact a loaded term, similar to the loaded terms of the recent wikipedia-wide Abortion debate debate. As far as I can tell, "natural" means "a title I like", the insinuation being that other titles are "unnatural", which I have already pointed out has resonances with practices that have been considered unsavory or even illegal in some places. The biggest problem with the anti-parenthesis comments is that there don't seem to be any actual reasons for not using parentheses: the comments rely on rhetorical tricks like treating other viewpoints as a joke or giving another viewpoint a loaded name. Don't get me wrong, I have my own idea of what I like, and I'm not all that fond of parenthetical titles, but the conversation needs to get back to the level of WP:AGF, even if it means that some editors, including me, may end up changing our minds about what we like. There seems to be a huge battleground mentality surrounding WP:TITLE these days, where editors line up to defend big bluelinked slogans, while the title policy remains bloated with verbiage and practically unusable. The first step to moving forward is to unpack the labels. Neotarf (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't "trying to laugh off comments". From my perspective, they seemed so outlandish and irrelevant that it didn't even occur to me that you might be making serious points. My remark that you appeared to be joking reflected an assumption of good faith (i.e. that you weren't trolling).

Please don't interpret these statements as insults or attempts to belittle your views. But honestly, I barely know how to begin addressing your criticisms, which stem from perceptions that I have difficulty understanding.

As far as I can tell, "natural" means "a title I like"

That isn't close to its meaning, which has been explained above. I don't know what else to add.

the insinuation being that other titles are "unnatural", which I have already pointed out has resonances with practices that have been considered unsavory or even illegal in some places.

Again, I don't even know how to respond to that. It's simply bizarre and has no basis in reality. I just spent several minutes trying (and failing) to come up with a gentler way to phrase that. I'm at a loss. I honestly don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but in more than seven years at Misplaced Pages, I've never encountered such a claim.

The biggest problem with the anti-parenthesis comments is that there don't seem to be any actual reasons for not using parentheses

The rationale has been explained. In general, we prefer names/formatting familiar to readers through their use in the course of ordinary English communication (i.e. outside contexts in which disambiguation is being appended to resolve naming conflicts and the like).

I honestly don't know what other explanations you seek. I apologize if I've misunderstood something that you wrote or offended you in any way. —David Levy 06:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Better amused than angry, say I. Certainly no offense taken. But your response illustrates the basic problem with the argument against parenthetical disambiguation. The strongest arguments are "it's simply bizarre", "I don't know how to respond", and "I've never heard of it before", variations on "personal point of view" arguments like WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I didn't participate in the "Big vs. Big(movie)" discussion because the only arguments I could think of were "because I say so" and "that's just WRONG". Opposing arguments have to do with how easy it is for someone searching for a particular topic to find it, or to recognize what the topic is about. If you say something is "natural" that is, coming from nature, it is only a point of view, it is only natural to you, and not verifiable for someone else. Neotarf (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You're applying a definition of "natural" other than that which is intended in this context.

The comments that you quoted/paraphrased refer to your conclusions, not to parenthetical disambiguation itself (which I don't dislike or regard as bizarre). —David Levy 14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case, my apologies, I misunderstood; what you must find hard to understand is the assertion that referring to non-parenthetical disambiguation as "natural" English is not NPOV. Maybe more a recent example would be better. Take "natural cereal". If you Google it, and look at the images, it is very quickly evident that everyone wants to tack the word "natural" onto the front of their packaging. But what does "natural" mean? Nothing. When you buy a "natural" cereal, you might be getting conventional (not organic) ingredients, as well as pesticides, genetically modified ingredients, or industrial waste. It's nothing more than a fancy label. But who would want to buy a non-"natural" cereal? I'm not saying that all the recent acrimony over titling is due to some Sapir-Whorfian reaction to the word, but it is certainly a coup for the anti-parentheses crowd to have the "natural" label tacked to their product. I think if you examined it more closely, "natural" English would have just about as much meaning as "natural" cereal. Neotarf (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Bkonrad, your contribution makes sense. It is definitely a topic which needs to be discussed. Can we first find an agreement about the following analysis? "Natural" disambiguation (as defined above) may be obtained as follows:

1. Substitution. An alternative name is used, which does not require disambiguation (e.g., Apartment instead of Flat (domicile))
2. Further specification. A disambiguating term or expression is added (also known as disambituating tag). For instance,

• An adjective is added before the ambiguous name (e.g. "Electric", in Electric light)
• The name of a cathegory or class is added after the ambiguous name (e.g. "people" in English people)
• Comma-separated disambiguation. For geographical names, the disambiguating tag is typically the name of a higher-level administrative division, added after the ambiguous name and separated from it by a comma (e.g. "Berkshire" in Windsor, Berkshire)

Listing comma-separated disambiguation as an example of "natural" disambiguation was suggested by JHunterJ, and already accepted in WP:NCDAB. Is this correct in your opinion? Does it need adjustments? Paolo.dL (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Parentheses do not come from nature, but neither do adjectives or commas. Neotarf (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not bad. Some qualification on "geographical names" -- the practice of comma disambiguation for place names varies somewhat based on regional practices. And the term "geographical names" may be to broad -- there is a distinction between how settlements and administrative divisions are disambiguated (often, but not exclusively with the comma convention) versus how natural features such as rivers, islands, lakes etc. are disambiguated (usually with parentheses -- and sometimes by administrative division and sometimes by other means such as by the river into which a tributary flows or the body of water in which an island is located). I'm not sure how best to capture that distinction, but it is slightly misleading to imply that comma disambiguation with administrative division is used for all geographical names. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you. What if we say:

• Comma-separated disambiguation. For some ambiguous place names (mainly names of human settlements or administrative divisions), the name of a higher-level administrative division is often added after the ambiguous name and separated from it by a comma (e.g. "Berkshire" in Windsor, Berkshire). For further details, see WP:PLACE.

Paolo.dL (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Natural in the context of WP:AT comes from the word ordering usually used in English. When this encyclopaedia was first created, article titles could have been structured as: "Blair, Anthony Charles Lynton", "Waterloo, battle of", "United Kingdom, London, Waterloo, train station" format loved by bureaucrats the world over and frequently used in Encyclopaedias, databases. The choice was made to go with natural ordering as would be found in English texts. Some of the naming conventions encourage this type of natural ordering for dab pages for example the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ships) encourages the use of prescript eg RMS Titanic rather than Titanic (ship) and "RMS Titanic" is more natural than "Titanic (ship)" although of course "Titanic (ship)" is more convent for the pipe trick. Personally I have never had a problem understanding what natural means, and I think that terms like "commonly used in running English" do not help (It makes me think of the old Chinese Communist term Running dog and to me seems about as foreign). Why use five words when one will do and it has a perfectly sound OED definition "Natural language 2.a" A language that has evolved naturally, as distinguished from an artificial language devised for international communications or for formal logical or mathematical purposes. -- PBS (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting contribution. Thank you. Unfortunately naturalness is defined differently, and in my opinion more completely and less questionably, in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. In my opinion parenthetical disambiguation is quite naturally used in encyclopedia titles and dictionary entries. Nobody forced encyclopedia and dictionary editors to use parenthetical disambiguation. That method evolved naturally, spontaneously. Since we are dealing with titles, I find it quite biased an approach which calls "natural" only the disambiguation methods (or alternative terms) commonly used in ordinary English over disambiguation methods commonly used in titles. For instance, "Ordinary disambiguation" would be better, in my opinion. However, it is difficult to find consensus about terminology, and terminology is not my main point.

On the contrary, it is easier to find consensus about facts, and this is what I am trying to do (see my analysis above). For instance, what you wrote about formats previously used in Misplaced Pages is quite interesting. I agree that these formats look awful. I think it would be useful to insert a sentence such as this:

• "Except for the above mentioned place names, comma-separated disambiguation should be avoided. For instance, Tony Blair and Battle of Waterloo are preferred over "Blair, Anthony Charles Lynton" and "Waterloo, battle of".

This is true, independently of the fact that we call "Waterloo, battle of" innatural, non-ordinary, or whatever.

Paolo.dL (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that WP:NAMINGCRITERIA differs from that OED definition, because it seems to me to be the same thing only expressed in different words.

The structure in article titles in many encyclopaedias are not in natural language they fall under the "as distinguished from an artificial language" in the OED definition because the rules of the language used to define the index of such structures is precise and limited (easy to describe in Yacc or Bison). Indeed in that respect it is a great pity that we can not use a full blown relational database to model our article titles.

You wrote "For instance, what you wrote about formats previously used in Misplaced Pages is quite interesting". I think you have misunderstood my point. Misplaced Pages could have gone that way (as it has for Categories), but editors at the start of the project rejected the idea and went for natural language article titles.

Russian names are naturally disambiguated by the middle name (son of). Some others can be naturally disambiguated by using a middle name or initial, or cognomen -- it depends on what the reliable sources use (We could if needed have "Bomber" Harris). There are other cases where a comma is useful for example we use them in WP:NCROY (see the dab page David Boyle). We also use "the elder" and "the younger" as a cognomen. So it is quite possible to use Fred Smith, the elder and Fred Smith, the younger (as is done in the ODNB and other references, because that is how they were referred to in their lifetimes and it has continued in reference works about them down to the ODNB), placing a comma after the name and before the cognomen allows the pipe trick to be used. Earlier this year I worked on a Scottish family who for several generations were members of the Scottish judiciary who are known by these types of differences (as they tended to be very unimaginative their use of Christian names and were frequently MPs and judges: See Robert Dundas of Arniston, the younger#Family. As another example I chose to place "alias Cromwell" in brackets Richard Williams (alias Cromwell), because usually I would write it that way (because although well known for Oliver Cromwell's family), it is unusual and it needs a footnote to explain it, but I could have used Richard Williams, alias Cromwell as it is often written that way in reliable sources. These are examples I can find easily because I have worked on them, but there are bound to be lots of other examples where disambiguation is done through commas. -- PBS (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I explained in my first comment the reason why I believe that "WP:NAMINGCRITERIA differs from that OED definition". Please read that comment before continuing the discussion. Basically, there's a difference between "commonly used in encyclopedia titles" (and hence expected by readers), and "commonly used in ordinary English" (running text or speech).

You may be or may be not right about the fact that parenthetical disambiguation is not natural language, as defined in OED. Let's assume that you are right. I see that you care much about this, but I don't. I do care much more about the fact that parenthetical disambiguation is commonly used in encyclopedias. And there are a lot of good reasons to follow suit.

Example. For instance, the ambiguous term "scale" is used to mean "(musical) scale" much more often than the non-ambiguous expression "musical scale". In most cases, we speak about (musical) scales in contexts where the word "musical" can be easily deduced and hence is omitted (e.g., we rarely say or write "C-major musical scale"). In other words, contexts in which the expression "musical scale" appears somewhat innatural. That's a good reason not to use "musical scale" as an article title. Either "(Musical) scale" or "Scale (music)" are more appropriate titles than "musical scale", and that's one of the reasons why "Scale (music)" is commonly used in encyclopedias.

This is consistent with what we do in the first sentence of the introduction: "In music, a scale is ...". By the way, we don't even care to add: "(sometimes also called musical scale)".

However, we had to fight a time-consuming battle on Talk:Scale (music) against editors who correctly maintained that, according to WP:PRECISION,

1. Musical scale was "natural" (← I don't really care about terminology), and
2. it should have been preferred over Scale (music) (← this is what I am really concerned about)

I conclude that WP:PRECISION, in other similar cases, may either prevent editors from taking the right decision, or make their job more difficult and time consuming. And that's why I started this discussion.

Paolo.dL (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Philip, I hope my answer above was satisfactory for you. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Precision problems

We had a bunch of edits to the precision section today, but they do nothing to clarify or restore the meaning of "precision". They seem instead to be designed to only re-inforce the idea that precision is for nothing but avoid title collisions. Can we work on restoring a bit of what precision was for? I'll look again at the history and try to pull out a good description... Dicklyon (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The history of this provision is summarized here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_36#Some_history_of_the_.22Precision.22_provision. I have incorporated the breifest hint of a positive value for precision, based on the old versions before a few editors whittled it down to nothing but disambiguation, and bofore Born2cycle tried to cast precision as a strictly negative property of a title. Let's keep the positive aspect of precision a bit distinct from the avoidance of over-precision in the case of article title collisions. Some further elaboration and separation seems like a good idea, but the bare hint of what we mean by precision as a good property of a title is now restored to the precision section at least. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My edits today were not supposed to solve that problem. They only cleaned, tweaked, simplified and rearranged the existing text. They were not at all designed to reinforce the idea that precision is to avoid title collision. They were designed to reinforce whatever was already written there with too many words. They helped you to see better than before a problem which was already there, and that I had not detected. Otherwise, I would have corrected it myself! Paolo.dL (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Paolo, and I appreciate your help in tuning it up. Sorry if I implied that your edits were part of some other agenda; I've become overly sensitive to such things in this policy page. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me say how much I appreciated your contribution: thanks to your restoring edit, the section title "Precision and disambiguation" and the shortcut WP:PRECISION eventually and for the first time made sense to me. However, I still cannot understand why there's a separate section for precision, and not for other criteria listed in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Paolo.dL (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See what I mean? In this edit, Born2cycle restores the more negative interpretation of precision as something to be avoided, claiming it's "well understood and long supported", essentially saying that there is no positive role for precision to "indicate accurately the topical scope of the article" as it had been for many years before the turmoil of 2009. See the history linked above. I think we need to fix this. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have moved his phrasing about identifying to the topic unambiguously to the positive side; at least that says we want some precision. Is this an OK compromise? Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

B2C has now done multiple additional edits to try to re-establish his position that precision is bad, essentially reverting me and SarekOfVulcan; and without joining this discussion. That's a problem. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I simply restored the longstanding wording at this point. As I said in my edit summary, I don't understand Sarek's objection to the version he reverted, as the part he reverted was longstanding wording as well. I disagree with your characterization of the longstanding wording as having no positive side.

This is the longstanding wording:

Titles usually use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.

The whole first clause, everything before the comma, is positive. Then, after the comma, there is a limitation clause.

Before Sarek's revert, this is what was there:

Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, but no more precise than that.

Let's say that's Version 2. To me, V2 has the same meaning as the original longstanding wording, but the positive part is more predominant, which is what I thought you wanted. Version 1 is the version you had, and to which Sarek reverted:

Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, but not overly precise.

The "not overly precise" language in V1 is new. The "no more precise than that" wording in V1 simply is rewording of the longstanding wording which said "only as precise as (where refers to necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously). Is the "no" a problem? How about this?

Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, but only as precise as that.

Personally, I think "no more precise than that" is more clear than "only as precise as that", but the intended meaning is ultimately the same. No? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, "no more precise than that" means that titling the article Bothell, Washington is against policy -- it must be named Bothell. "Not overly precise" disallows Bothell (city), King and Snohomish Counties, Washington, USA, but allows Bothell, Washington. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and US city names are one of the very few exceptions to that. Anyway, now you're talking about changing the meaning of the wording, which is not how this endeavor started.

The problem with V1 is "but not overly precise" is vague as compared to the original "only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously", or V2's "no more precise than ". I know that's exactly what you and Dick are trying to remove, but it's been in there a very long time, for good reason, and does reflect actual practice, both past and current (except for US city names). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And except for royalty and some aspects for the tree of life topics and any number of other exceptions. Do we really need to encode a pretense in policy? older ≠ wiser 01:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Precision has gotten more influential in royalty. Plant articles that use scientific Latin names when the common English name is sufficiently precise are an exception too. There might be a few others that favor following a pattern per consistency, but those are the exceptions. Those exceptions aside, which are accounted for with the use of "usually" in the wording, the precision criterion as written certainly applies to the vast majority of our articles, and always has. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We went round and round on this before. Maybe an RFC is in order, where anyone can propose a rewording of the precision section, and we discuss a bit and then vote for which ones we think move us in the right direction. After that, a bit more discussion, and decide what to do. Does that seem reasonable? Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My prediction: months from now, someone will justify France (country) because of this new text. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Let's be practical:

1. Sometimes, we prefer titles that are more precise than needed to be unambiguous. For instance, we prefer:
   • Bothell, Washington over Bothell. Although Bothell is unambiguous, and hence precise enough, we prefer a more precise and more easily recognizable title (see WP:PLACE).
2. Sometimes, we prefer titles that are less precise than needed to be unambiguous. Namely, the titles of articles which refer to a primary topic are, by definition, ambiguous (see WP:Primary topic). Indeed, they are disambiguated by means of a subtitle (e.g. "This article is about the country. For other uses, see France (disambiguation)"). For instance, we prefer:
   • France over France (country) (see comment above by Enric Naval; see France (disambiguation))
   • Perth over Perth (Australia) (see Perth (disambiguation)).
   • Energy over Energy (phisics) (see Energy (disambiguation)).

Everyone agrees Consensus has been already reached about this! (see WP:Primary topic and WP:PLACE). Is it so difficult to translate it into a criterion? None of the sentences suggested above to describe this criterion is sufficiently detailed to explain this. We need some more detail. For instance:

It is not true to say that Everyone agrees about prefering Bothell, Washington over Bothell. Born2cycle among others have argued long and vigorously against that convention. The situation has been fairly quiescent recently, as there appears to be a sort of grudging acceptance of the U.S. city convention now addressed in occasional individual move discussions. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also British places are usually specified more precisely than American places for cultural reasons. It is quite common for Americans to say for example "Birmingham, Alabama" while a Brit is very unlikely to say (or write) "Birmingham, West Midlands" or "Birmingham, England", to a certain degree it is a "National varieties of English issue" coupled to natural language usage. -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached about the two statements above, but currently the precision criterion would reject the first statement! The alternative criterion suggested by Born2cycle is too strict and would reject both! If the criterion is based on previously reached consensus, as I proposed, we can avoid further useless and time consuming fights. It is wise for everybody to abide to consensus. Paolo.dL (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's probably more complicated than that. Some cities in the U.S. are automatically primary topics. British cities are supposed to be more closely defined, but often are not. And Canada has a whole group of editors who have determined city by city whether any has a duplicated name and which can be listed as a primary topic. This has resulted in some very esoteric Canadian names with no other information in the title that would even identify it as a town. The point I am trying to make is that there are country-by-country local naming conventions. Neotarf (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I modified my proposal (see above). The goal is the same, but now I distinguished more clearly the (strict) criterion from the (codified) exceptions. I think the text is now better structured, much easier to understand, and less questionable. See above.

Neotarf, what you wrote is true, but I would not worry too much about it. We cannot specify every detail of WP:PLACE in this general article. My proposal is already more detailed than the previous ones. A more detailed proposal is likely to produce disagreement, rather than solving this never-ending conflict. In my proposal,

• Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is the example for a title that is as precise as needed (no more, no less).
• Bothell, Washington is just an example for a title that may appear too precise, while
• Guitar is just an example for a title that may appear not precise enough.

Being more detailed than that is a suicide. What's important is writing a criterion that allows for some flexibility (tradeoff with other criteria), but not too much flexibility (undetermined level of freedom). Exceptions must include both Guitar (ambiguous and hence not precise enough, according to the current version of the criterion) and Bothell, Washington (unambiguous, but too precise according to the text proposed by Born2cycle, as there exists a less precise title that is also unambiguous). We will stop fighting about nothing and move on if we can accept this. Paolo.dL (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be conflating issues. Precision is not the reason (or at least not the only reason) that Bothell, Washington and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are prefered over Bothell and Mozart even though the shorter terms are redirects to the primary topic. Other stylistic matters affect the determination beyond precision alone. older ≠ wiser 12:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Your criticism is not constructive. I am trying to solve a fight. Are you interested in helping me? If possible, find another example in which other stylistic matters do not affect the determination. But I think that a title is never selected according only to a single criterion. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've explained what fight it is that you're trying to solve very clearly. Substituting one possibly problematic example for another is not progress. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The example about United Kingdom is not "possibly problematic", but totally inappropriate, as United Kingdom is not a precise title! In other words, it is a proper example for an exception to the precision criterion, not for its application. (see my proposal above) Paolo.dL (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom to my mind remains a far clearer illustration. United Kingdom IS precise enough for it to be the title of the article. "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" IS an actual, official name for the subject. "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791)" on the other hand is an entirely artificial contruct. There is no obvious reason why anyone would want to use that as the title. older ≠ wiser 00:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that United Kingdom is precise enough to be a title for an article about "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But not as precise as needed to be unambiguous. You are right about "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791)". So, let's use Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta versus Mother Teresa, which should make both of us happy. Paolo.dL (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I modified my proposal, taking into account the contribution by Bkonrad (alias "older ≠ wiser"). Other advices? Paolo.dL (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Paolo, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think that Bkonrad made a good point that you missed when he said "Other stylistic matters affect the determination beyond precision alone." That is, precision is but one criterion; it doesn't need to specify any hard rule that would then need exceptions to get around it. You can just as well point out that Bothell is plenty precise, but Bothell, Washington is much more recognizable (to most people, "Foobar, Washington" is "recognizable" as a city in Washington state USA, even it doesn't exist). And guitar (instrument) is very precise, but almost nobody would think that guitar would be anything else, or less precise, so precision provides very little to go against conciseness on that one; that's what primaryname is supposed to go, but it gets way overapplied in genuinely ambiguous situations (like Perth, famously). Certainly Wolfgang Mozart is precision enough, or at least certainly primary, so why didn't we use that more concise term than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? In this case, it's probably recognizability again that tilts the scale. I think your proposal comes close to falling into Born2cycle's style of trying to making naming into an algorithm. It would be better if we could just describe the virtues of precision, recognizability, and so on, fairly, in a way like we used to, and let editors do the tradeoffs. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dicklyon. You may have misunderstood my goal, or I may have not explained it yet clearly enough. I am not describing a rigid "algorithm". On the contrary, I am helping the readers to understand that the policy allows for some flexibility ("tradeoffs" with other criteria). I do not give rules for that flexibility. I only give examples. In other words, I do understand Bkonrad's sentence, and your comments about "tradeoffs" between criteria, and indeed I think we should mention this idea in WP:PRECISION. A vague text like the current one in WP:PRECISION only obtains the effect to be challenged by editors who legitimately want a stricter criterion, just because it is less vague. In other words, the wide consensus existing about flexibility, and its sound rationale, must be explained as they are not immediately understood by editors. That's why I modified my proposal accordingly two days ago. Paolo.dL (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I modified my proposal again today, taking into account Dicklyon's contribution. For instance, I agree that, for most people, Guitar is precise enough to be unambiguous. I did not use the example about Perth, as it may be controversial, but I used Energy instead of Guitar, as Energy is a more ambiguous term (at least for people who are not familiar with physics). I also explained that a primary topic is not precise enough to be unambiguous, but precise enough to be understood by most people (see also my latest answer to Bkinrad about United Kingdom). Paolo.dL (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@Paolo.dL I am finding some of what you are proposing reasonable, but from some of what you have written I think you are off target. For example you write "We cannot specify every detail of WP:PLACE in this general article". This is not a general article it is a policy. PLACE is a naming convention (guideline) that explains and supplements this policy. US places have the format they do for Wikipdia historic reasons -- back in 2002 a bot was used to create 1,000 of them using the format they have (see Ram-Man and Rambot). So US place names are not useful examples to use because so many have already been created and they have a format that differs from the rest of the planet. I am broadly in agreement with what older/wiser wrote above and your dismissal "Your criticism is not constructive. I am trying to solve a fight. Are you interested in helping me?" does not seem to me to be solving a fight but creating one. older/wiser asked "I don't think you've explained what fight it is that you're trying to solve very clearly." Nor do I. What is the fight you are trying to solve? -- PBS (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There has been an edit war recently, discussed right above my proposal, in #Precision problems, and below, in #Last stable version?. It has not been solved yet, and seems to be about some changes made in 2009 (Dycklyon calls them "the turmoil of 2009"). This war is so difficult to solve that Born2cycle, in section #AN/I regarding restoring stable version of precision wording, requested "the assistance of an uninvolved administrator to restore the stable wording of the precision criterion".

WP:PLACE provides an example of over-precision. It would be nice if we could say that it is the only example. However, according to older≠wiser, there are several other examples, which include "royalty and some aspects for the tree of life topics and any number of other exceptions". Please let me know if you have other examples. If you agree, in this proposal we can say something like that:

• The only examples of insufficient or excessive precision are described in specific guidelines, such as WP:Primary topic, WP:PLACE, WP:ROYALTY.

But I would like to know also Dicklyon's and older≠wiser's opinion about that. A similar sentence already exists, but it only refers to "the main" exceptions to the precision criterion (not all of them). I think that this approach is more conservative, more realistic, and less questionable, but I will abide to consensus.

The discussion at the beginning of this section (before my proposal) is about these exceptions to the precision criterion. I started this proposal with this sentence: "Let's be practical". I mean that these exceptions exist and are used profusely. They are not sporadic. We only need to find the most appropriate way to describe them. This is the wisest way to deal with their existence. Providing information about the interaction between different criteria is enlightening. We won't get stable consensus about vague statements. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you it helps put it in context but, I am not sure how much of the archives you have read. There was a loooooooooong discussion about this issue in the last quarter of last year. It revolved around some titles that Tony1 wanted to rename. I think the first example was in the section Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles/Archive 33#Article specificity but there are lots of sections after that. Misplaced Pages tend to use the official short legislative names as used in the Commonwealth (The official short name for an Act followed by the year) -- unless thre is a well known common name for the Act. We do not normally include the country/state in the name unless it is needed for disambiguation purposes. Tony1 is/was of the opinion that we should add more to the name not for disambiguation purposes but for clarity. Acts of parliaments are a good test example to use--because legislators already give Acts unique names, so making the names longer is usually about additions for clarity rather than disambiguation--but the principle can be extended to other fields. He did not find a majority of editors in favour of making this change. -- PBS (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the change was rejected, this seems to be another example for titles that need to meet the precision criterion. Even if the change had been accepted, I don't think we should discuss in WP:PRECISION every possible specific exception to the principle criterion. We only need to warn readers that

1. exceptions do exist,
2. they can be only accepted when they are supported by other sufficiently "heavy" stylistic considerations (e.g., other naming criteria, or WP:Primary topic) and validated by consensus
3. most of them are (luckily) described in specific guidelines.

For that, we just need two examples of validated exceptions: one for excessive precision, and the other for insufficient precision. Let me know if you agree. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about PBS's latest contribution, I modified the proposal to make clear that all the exceptions to the precision criterion need to be "validated by consensus". The first sentence of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA alredy says that this is required whenever there is more than one possible title "for any given article". In this case, consensus is even more important. Dicklyon, I hope you agree that this is not an algorithm. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice that the first sentence of the proposal is almost identical to the first sentence in WP:PRECISION (just less vague). The following sentence is only meant to briefly summarize what you all explained in this talk page, so that you won't have to repeat it again. It is neither meant to be an algorithm, nor to authorize or encourage a change like that proposed last year by Tony1 and described above by PBS (17:48, 16 July 2012). The proposal has been modified repeatedly according to your comments. I just made it even shorter. I believe it is now mature for publication. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If the unnecessary precision of Bothell, Washington - which is titled contrary to how most WP articles are titled, including most articles about cities - is an example of anything, it's WP:IAR. The so-called "convention" has never had consensus support - it has merely also failed to develop consensus in opposition. It's a stalemate at best, and has been for years. Such an example has no place at WP:AT. Changes to policy wording that portray aberrations as if they are the norm are unacceptable.

But thanks for showing how such aberrations, if accepted, would unnecessarily complicate the policy by riddling it with messy exceptions and contradictions. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I described them as exceptions, not "the norm". Also, since most of them are described in guidelines, it is obvious that most editors agree that they are not "aberrations", but valid exceptions. I know that you don't like it, but I am just describing the current situation. You might be able to change it in the future, and in that case the second sentence will be removed. It does not matter whether we agree that these exceptions are valid or not. They do exist and they are by no means rare, so we just need to warn editors about their existance. Sharing knowledge is useful. Simply, more people will be aware that some exceptions are described in specific guidelines. Some people may regard them as stylistically valid, some others as aberrations. Paolo.dL (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would argue rather that it's normal, and not an exception, to title cities with city, state. The so-called "unnecessary precision" is an exception to B2C's minimalism; that interpretation of "precision" and "recognizability", where "conciseness" trumps all, is itself widely disputed. So I think that listing these as "exceptions" goes too far in shoring up his interpretation as "normal". Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Born2cycle does not agree with you about the fact that this proposal shores up "his interpretation as normal". This proposal simply describes the true situation much more clearly than the current text, which is too vague. Notice that my text does not say that "city, state" is "not normal". It only says it is a valid exception to one criterion, supported by a guideline. In our opinion, it is "normal" that some title may not completely meet ALL criteria, as some criteria cannot be (totally) met without disregarding others. In the opinion of others, it is not "normal". Paolo.dL (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but I disagree that this is an example over-precision, and don't want to see it portrayed as such. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

But you can't deny that, although "city, state" is as precise as needed to be natural and recognizable, it is in some cases more precise than needed to be unambiguous. I am stating nothing else. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What I deny is that it's more precise than the usual precision criterion calls for. Dicklyon (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, but the "usual precision criterion" (i.e. the current version of the criterion) is purposedly vague, not because we don't know how to make it clear, but just because we are afraid to. It is not designed to explain, but to conceal. Not to be readable, but ambiguous. See below. I am sure you understand. Paolo.dL (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

But if your intention is to make the usual precision criterion more clear, you need to first arrive at a clear understanding of what the community supports. Your edits seem instead to be bolstering the minimalist interpretation, which has never had widespread support, and directly contradicts the way the provision was accepted prior to 2009, which said that titles should be precise enough to define the topic of the article; B2C threw that out in favor of precision being a bad thing, such that you want just enough to not make names collide. Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you became too suspicious. In short:

1. I wrote "precision is a goal, over-precision should be avoided"
2. I even added examples to show that in some cases over-precision is good.

And you reacted as if I had written "precision is bad"! You wrote twice in the article "...but avoid over-precision". I added the Mother Teresa example just to explain this sentence of yours. How can you fail to notice that, without mentioning exceptions, this sentence of yours is not only vague, but even more "minimalist" than my proposal? That's why Born2cycle hates my proposal. BritishWatcher below was afraid as you are, but he eventually understood the neutrality of my proposal. You are probably the only one who thinks I am biased. Let's be practical. What examples of specific titles are incorrectly explained or not allowed for in my proposal? Paolo.dL (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Paolo, it's not you that I'm suspicious of. But I don't like supporting the notion of "over precision", which inherently treats precision as bad; so, yes, "precision is good"; but no to calling good precision "over precision". Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are being picky on my text, but not on yours, which is much worse. Let me explain. My text explicitly states that being over-precise may be good in some cases. The drawback you see in my text is trifling. Your text says "avoid over-precision", without explaining the boundary between precise and over-precise. This can be easily interpreted as more strict, less flexible, more negative and more minimalist than my text. Moreover, it is certainly less clear! Paolo.dL (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a text, and if I did it wouldn't include a negative spin on precision like "avoid over-precision"; I'd phrase it positively, more like it used to be when it said something like "precise enough to clearly indicate the topic of the article". Many of our titles are not nearly that precise, due to the interpretation that more precision than is needed to avoid collisions is "over precision". Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, you inserted a paragraph containing the sentence "avoid over-precision" at the very beginning of WP:PRECISION. Later, you used the same sentence in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:

1. Revision as of 17:36, 7 July 2012, by Dicklyon (Precision and disambiguation: say what precision is for first, then what we need to do if that's not enough)
2. Revision as of 19:06, 7 July 2012, by Dicklyon (Deciding on an article title: rephrase precision bullet more positively)

The current versions of both WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:PRECISION still contain that sentence, and have a significant drawback: they do not explain the boundary between precise and "over-precise". This can be easily interpreted by readers as a strict and minimalist approach, which does not allow for the more flexible approach adopted in some guidelines (e.g. WP:PLACE, see comments above by Bkonrad and below by BritishWatcher).

My proposal is a significant improvement with respect to the current text. It explicitly states that being over-precise may be good in some cases. Moreover, it is certainly more clear. It explains what you called "tradeoff", and BritishWatcher called "balance" between criteria.

Paolo.dL (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Asking for additional contributions about the final version of the alternative proposal

In my opinion, both Born2cycle and Dicklyon seem to be afraid to state the obvious, possibly because neither likes the current situation. They both prefer being vague, either by hiding the existance of a number of validated exceptions which actually do exist, or by using a vague formulation of the criterion (the current formulation) which makes it difficult for the reader to understand the difference between precise and "overly precise". But being vague is not a good service to the readers, who deserve to know what we all (including Born2cycle and Dicklyon) know and the article does not explain. Does anybody agree with me? Paolo.dL (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just arrived at this debate and read through briefly the conversation, sorry but id just like to check something as the bits about country articles concerned me. Would this proposal in anyway impact on the position of any current country article, or would this alteration have no impact on the current positions which go by WP:Commonname? Common name in my opinion is far more important than precision when it comes to article titles, particularly of countries. Which is why almost every single country article on wikipedia is at a common name, not the full official precise name. If this alteration would change the balance in terms of precision vs commonname, then i strongly oppose any change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, it makes clear exactly what you wrote, i.e. that there exist validated exceptions to the precision criterion, which result from the application of other naming criteria. Currently, readers are not even warned that WP:Commonname may in some cases prevail over WP:Precision! My proposal is only meant to explain the current situation from a neutral point of view, not to change the balance in terms of precision vs commonname. Notice that WP:Commonname is based on two naming criteria: naturaleness and recognizability, which are exactly the two naming criteria I mention in my first example (about Bothell, Washington). Paolo.dL (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, notice that my proposal was repeatedly modified, taking into account the contributions of Bkonrad (alias "older ≠ wiser"), Neotarf, Dicklyon, and BPS. Paolo.dL (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Considering title changes"

I'd like to make this section more concise, as follows:

I hope this makes it clearer to users and reduces the possibility of deliberately playing on parts of it. Thoughts? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please highlight the changes you are proposing, and the reasons for the proposed changes? -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Below this comment, I have explained the main changes as I understand them. Feel free to correct. --Boson (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• The first part has been moved further down and changed from

In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason, such as anachronism, for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Misplaced Pages has articles on both Volgograd and the Battle of Stalingrad.

to

Do remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense and that there may be valid reasons for inconsistencies in common usage – Misplaced Pages has an article on Volgograd (the city) but the Battle of Stalingrad.

• The part

While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Misplaced Pages describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

has been changed to

Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view – Misplaced Pages describes current usage and cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

• The condition

  If an article title has been stable for a long time,

  seems to have been removed.

The word "editing" remains. I would prefer "moving" , which I presume is what is meant.--Boson (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the first paragraph, which is about two very specific cases (political-ethical considerations and consistency), should be moved after the second and third ones, which are more general (they both apply to article titles that are controversial for any possible reason, not only for political-ethical considerations or consistency). It should not be moved between the second and third sentences, that are about the same topic (controversial titles). Paolo.dL (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I did it. If this change is not reverted, could you please adjust your proposal? If you keep the current order of paragraphs, it will be much easier to discuss the changes you propose. By the way, I think you oversimplified the example about consistency. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice you made a couple of changes, which I don't disagree about. Is it OK as it is now, in your opinion? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem not to have read what I wrote above. Would you mind to adjust your proposal (both "old" and "proposed") according to the new order of paragraphs? ... Paolo.dL (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies regarding diacritics, alternate names, and WP:AT

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RFC:_Names_with_diacritics_and_other_non-ASCII_letters:_Should_we_permit.2C_require.2C_or_prohibit_ASCIIfied_versions.3F. j⚛e decker 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

See also the related discussion at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There is already a Category for MoS (regional) but no Vietnamese page there yet. Although a link to this MoS (regional) category has been added to MoS, it's very difficult to find. There is also a link from Misplaced Pages:Use_English. There isn't a link from WP:Article titles to the MoS (regional) category because somebody who thinks he OWNS WP:Article titles repeatedly reverts any attempt to add such a link for no real reason. LittleBen (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The MOS pages are not guidance for the Article titles policy, the guidelines for AT are naming conventions (the MOS pages cover usage within an article).-- PBS (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That distinction should really be made much more clear, because it is not only beginning editors that continue to make that mistake. Our policies and guidelines for article titles are different and separate from the p&g for the body of article(which is covered by MOS). Also for the body of articles we make a distinction between the lede and the rest of the article. Our p&g for the lede differs from the rest of the article. This confuses people unnecessarily. We could make it more clear by using a hatnote that clearly states the scope for a given guideline or even for a section of a guidelines.

For example "Scope: article title" , "Scope: lede" or "Scope: article body"

We cannot expect wp to function smoothly unless it is made perfectly clear what falls within the scope of each guideline. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How to handle foreign terms and foreign names in article titles is surely usually defined by the appropriate MoS (regional), and this is not going to be found if there's no link to the MoS (regional) category. For example, an article on former PM Tanaka Kakuei (Japanese name order) should be titled Kakuei Tanaka, as you will find if you look in the MoS (Japan-related). Furthermore, this "rule" does not always apply, as explained here. So tell me, how are people going to work out the proper usage of foreign terms and foreign names in article titles without a link that allows them to find the appropriate MoS (regional) that explains it? LittleBen (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

By flowing usage in reliable English language sources, and by following the relevant naming conventions for further guidance, not by following rules laid out in a style guide. -- PBS (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• People who arbitrarily decide naming conventions without following MoS guidelines are likely to get their edits reverted, and be whacked or even blocked by the MoS thought police.
• The problem is that most people don't have a clue how to do Internet research, and most Misplaced Pages users can't even figure out how to search Misplaced Pages Categories. This is why I think that knowledge of Internet research techniques should be a critical part of making verifiable, neutral POV, commonsense decisions—about which article title is most appropriate, and whether diacritics should be used in article titles, for example.
• Here I tried to add links to make the importance of research and the "how" (process) clear, but was repeatedly reverted.
• If people know about Google Insights for Search then it is often easy for them to find which rendering of a word or name is most searched for, like this (note: sports category) or like this. (Since articles are unlikely to be read if people don't find them when they search, this is surely one of the strongest WP:COMMONSENSE reasons for generally not using diacritics in English Misplaced Pages article titles. Google doesn't index Misplaced Pages redirects, so switching to diacritics in an article title—when most searches are without diacritics—is likely to make an article drop in Google's rankings.) If it's not found then it won't be read.
• These tennis examples come from discussions related to tennis articles here and here. The issue of diacritics is still controversial, and discussion is still continuing.
• Unless people can find links to—and learn—how to research stuff adequately, then Misplaced Pages will no longer be a widely respected and trustworthy resource. LittleBen (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Change policy -- Official Country Names

I believe that we ought to change the article title for sovereign states to reflect the proper, official name; common names should be redirects, not the article title.

Misplaced Pages desires to attain levels of professionalism equivalent to encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica; why, then, is this policy not already followed. Perhaps the most egregious example is the article titled United States rather than United States of America. Equally as bad is China (which should refer to NEITHER country in my opinion, but be a separate article entirely.) instead of People's Republic of China. The current standard is both unprofessional and in some cases can be misleading, and as such I believe a change is in order.

I am considering creating a request for discussion. If I do so before someone else does, I'll link to it here. Zaldax (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: THE DISCUSSION IS HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaldax (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)