Misplaced Pages

talk:Article titles: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:42, 14 November 2012 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 14d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles/Archive 39.← Previous edit Revision as of 00:18, 15 November 2012 edit undoApteva (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,591 edits Does the MoS trump the conventions of primary sources?Next edit →
Line 72: Line 72:
::Yes, I noticed that first point (pun intended) after I asked here, and subsequently dropped my argument at the Wikiproject. But, theoretically, if every single source spelled it without a period (or styled anything differently than Misplaced Pages suggests), would the MoS on shortening apply? ] (]) 23:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)? ::Yes, I noticed that first point (pun intended) after I asked here, and subsequently dropped my argument at the Wikiproject. But, theoretically, if every single source spelled it without a period (or styled anything differently than Misplaced Pages suggests), would the MoS on shortening apply? ] (]) 23:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)?
:::Probably this is more like a case for ]. If every single source formats a title or trademark the same way, we would, too. Otherwise, we choose the most "normal" from among the styles in secondary sources, typically. ] (]) 00:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC) :::Probably this is more like a case for ]. If every single source formats a title or trademark the same way, we would, too. Otherwise, we choose the most "normal" from among the styles in secondary sources, typically. ] (]) 00:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
::::In other words, no, but common usage does. We do, however have specific limitations on trademarks, and avoid unusual capitalizations, for example. According to primary sources, the actual name of the Atlanta airport is ], but according to an overwhelming number of secondary sources, the name is ]. According to the city council, who named it, the first is the name, as well as to the FAA, and some of the airport signs, but the airport website uses the latter, and the ordinance that changed the name is even more confusing because it starts out by saying this is an ordinance to change the name to Hartsfield - Jackson, and ends by saying therefore the name is Hartsfield-Jackson, which is the name most commonly used. ] (]) 00:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:18, 15 November 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Article titles page.
Shortcuts
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.

Template:DS Courtesy Notice


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.

RfC: Acronym and Initialism

I would like to have Acronym and initialism removed as an example in the Titles containing "and" section. (If/when this is done, I indend to propose a move of that article to Acronym in that article's talk page.) Rationale is as follows:

  • "Initialism" has very scarce representation in mainstream dictionaries, and generally in reliable sources
  • Google count: 1 million for initialism versus 150 million for acronym (Google news: 244 vs 167,000; Google books: 11,600 vs 1,500,000)
  • Even Pain and nociception has finally moved to a sensible title
  • Initialism is essentially a historical trivia, and in its article it is receiving undue weight
  • In some points, info about initialism in that article lacks supporting reliable sources and it smells of original research. For example, the last part of the Nomenclature section.
  • Current title is not encyclopedic. Encyclopedias tend to avoid "and" in titles, unless the article discusses dual concepts, or anyway concepts that naturally have comparable notability
  • Current title is in conflict with many other WP:TITLE guidelines and principles, and I quote:
    • Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources
    • When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable.
    • Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by
    • Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic
    • Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
    • Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously identify the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise
    • Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long
    • The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists
    • The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.
    • Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms
    • Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used A search engine may help to collect this data
    • When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph

Just for sake of clarity, please note that I am not seeking to drop the whole Titles containing "and" section, which has its place, but simply to drop Acronym and initialism as an example for that guideline (if anything, in my view it should be cited as a counterexample). Thanks. 220.246.156.208 (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, but this really does not need an RfC to decide. Unless anyone disagrees I recommend deleting the RfC template and making the change. There are certainly thousands or at least hundreds of examples that are better than "and initialism"! I recommend going ahead with moving, or at least propose moving the article to Acronym and replace in this policy with a better example. I got 14,900 from google books - trending up? Just kidding. Not used often enough to support using and. And is used when two different subjects are combined, not when two synonyms are used, with one of them almost never used. Apteva (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. As replacement examples I can offer: Laurel and Hardy (famous duo), Supply and demand (phrase/idiom), Ying and yang (dual concepts). 220.246.134.63 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
DONE... Example removed... No need for a replacement... we give enough other examples to make the point. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, removing RfC and bringing this to the Acronym and initialism talk page. 219.79.72.251 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Common name vs. naming convention, again

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor → F-22 --Born2cycle (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The snowball of opposition there confirms that the community does not value conciseness above all else, as you do. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
One discussion can confirm nothing about what "the community" values. In this case the participants are obviously active editors of that and similar articles, with a bias accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
And as I have stated many times in the past, the current WP:RM process introduces a major bias since the vast majority of participants are likely to be article editors who may have a different focus then the community in general. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

USPLACE RFC notice

Which U.S. cities require disambiguation by state? Example: Atlantic City or Atlantic City, New Jersey?

See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#RfC:_US_city_names. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Does the MoS trump the conventions of primary sources?

For example, UFC on Fuel TV: Struve vs. Miocic is currently titled with a period after "vs". The official poster for the event (seen in the article) does not. I brought this up at the MMA Wikiproject, and was answered with keep status quo, per MOS:ABBR#Shortenings. The way I see it, this doesn't apply, since we wouldn't be shortening "versus", just copying the already-shortened "vs". I'm not asking what we should title it (there are other guidelines to consider for that, such as COMMONNAME), only whether MOS:ABBR applies to cases like these.

Also, does the exact title used by the creator of a show carry more weight or less than a title used by multiple secondary sources?

If this has been discussed elsewhere, a link would be appreciated. I'm not here to make people repeat themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a good case for this question, since their other primary source includes the period. But in general, we should put less weight on primary source styling, and more on secondary sources for how things are referred to. Our own MOS also should get a lot of weight, though I'm not sure "trump" is always the right concept. Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that first point (pun intended) after I asked here, and subsequently dropped my argument at the Wikiproject. But, theoretically, if every single source spelled it without a period (or styled anything differently than Misplaced Pages suggests), would the MoS on shortening apply? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)?
Probably this is more like a case for MOS:TM. If every single source formats a title or trademark the same way, we would, too. Otherwise, we choose the most "normal" from among the styles in secondary sources, typically. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
In other words, no, but common usage does. We do, however have specific limitations on trademarks, and avoid unusual capitalizations, for example. According to primary sources, the actual name of the Atlanta airport is Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International Airport, but according to an overwhelming number of secondary sources, the name is Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. According to the city council, who named it, the first is the name, as well as to the FAA, and some of the airport signs, but the airport website uses the latter, and the ordinance that changed the name is even more confusing because it starts out by saying this is an ordinance to change the name to Hartsfield - Jackson, and ends by saying therefore the name is Hartsfield-Jackson, which is the name most commonly used. Apteva (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)