Misplaced Pages

talk:Article titles - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fyunck(click) (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 6 May 2014 (→Non English titles - what the heck is going on???). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:54, 6 May 2014 by Fyunck(click) (talk | contribs) (→Non English titles - what the heck is going on???)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
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.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Misplaced Pages article titles policy and Manual of Style, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

On 30 January 2010, it was proposed that this page be moved from Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions to Misplaced Pages:Article titles. The result of the discussion was moved.


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 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Creation story/myth/narrative

A few articles about creation myths are titled "xxx creation narrative" (with xxx being the culture or religion from which it originates, like Genesis creation narrative). Others are titled "xxx creation myth" (like Japanese creation myth. Still others are titled "xxx creation story". The problem I see here is that by referring to some articles as narratives and others as myths, we are giving greater credibility to some religions than others, something that we obviously want to avoid per Misplaced Pages:NPOV. In my opinion, all articles of this type should be titled either "myth", "narrative" or "story", for consistency and equal credibility. What do others think? Rwenonah (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The current scheme seems rather biased, and a more uniform scheme would likely be an improvement. Probably "narrative" is neutral and descriptive enough. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind trying to come up with a consistent word to use for these articles... the fly in the ointment is coming up with one that is seen as being neutral. Editors get very touchy about what term should be used when it comes to articles on their religious beliefs... I strongly suggest that this also be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree also. Let us suppose that there are two versions of an event. (This might be an issue in a newsroom or in a courtroom.) Let us suppose that I strongly agree with one version, and that I strongly disagree with the other version. I can easily accept a decision to use "narrative" or "story" to apply to each of them simultaneously. If I want to provide evidence for or against one or the other, then that is a separate matter. In an organization which, by its nature, supports one version or the other, words supporting or refuting a version can be expected. However, Misplaced Pages does not, by its nature, support or refute any version of the accounts in question.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree. We should follow the sources, the mostly reliable independent secondary sources, should there be conflict on the question amongst the sources. It is not for Misplaced Pages, or its editors, to ascribe levels of credibility to myths/narratives/stories, nor to rank them, nor to declare them of equivalent credibility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
These are creation stories, not alternatives to the Big bang theory (which we could maybe also call a narrative, but let's don't go there). It would make no sense to suggest that any of them are more fictional than others, even if different sized groups of English speakers might want to treat them as such. But looking at sources may still be useful. It looks like "story" may be most common for many of them; see , , ; though Japanese and Greek and Hindu and some others are more often referred to as "myth" in English, because they're more foreign to us English speakers. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Dealing with hard cases, such as near religious adherence to the Big Bang theory, or the overt symbolism devoid of implied authority in the Dreamtime, and new fangled Scientology creationism is worthy, and it shows that editorial judgement is best shied away from. The is room for argument, but arguments should reference independent reliable sources, not assertions of Truth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Dicklyon (talk · contribs), I'm with SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) on this one. The whole point of following usage in reliable sources is so we don't make these judgements — they make them for us. If RS are not consistent in how they refer to creation myths/narratives/stories/whatevers, that's not our fault, nor is it a problem that is ours to fix. We just reflect their usage in our titles, whether it's consistent or not. -B2C 19:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Myth is the neutral and objective scientific term for narratives that are part of systems of religious worship, particularly of those that describe the creation of the world, the technical term is a cosmogonic myth. The technical term should of course be applied to all such narratives. We cannot use the sources blindly in this case because certain religions tend to be described by their followers and others tend to be described by outsiders or even detractors, which creates a bias in the literature if we consider the bulk rather than focus on the specific field of scholarship that focuses on this, namely comparative religion. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly; I'd be happy with myth, but large numbers of English speakers that adhere to Genesis-derived religions might object to calling the Genesis story "myth", which is why we are where we are. How shall we fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Narrative or story is probably the best option, to avoid unnecessarily offending a lot of people. Rwenonah (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that narrative or story are accurate, neutral and less likely to offend. older ≠ wiser 11:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for calling attention to this situation, Rwenonah. It's clear there has been WP:systemic bias at work here. The article List of creation myths lists several dozen creation stories, but pointedly does NOT list the Judeo-Christian/Genesis stories such as Genesis creation narrative (although those stories are categorized under Category:Creation myths and in some cases under Category:Myth of origins, and are referred to in some places as "Abrahamic myths").
    So what to call them? Most such articles are currently called "Foo creation myth". I didn't find any called "Foo creation story", although I may have missed them. "Creation story" and "Creation narrative" redirect to "Creation myth".
    Although "myth" may be the appropriate technical term for such stories, it is generally taken in English to mean "a traditional story that is not true" or "a widely held but false belief". Clearly that's why "myth" is not used for the Genesis version - many readers of this encyclopedia subscribe to that version to a greater or lesser degree - but that is cultural bias. On the other hand, any attempt to change the Genesis version to "Genesis creation myth" would be highly controversial. We should probably change all the "Foo creation myth" articles to "Foo creation narrative," which is neutral and appears to be the more common term in a quick Google search. "Foo creation story" would also be acceptable.
    This would be a major change affecting dozens of articles and should probably be subject to a formal and widely-advertised proposal. I don't think we can "follow the sources" in this case, calling some of them "story" and others "myth", since the sources themselves may be subject to cultural bias. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It is Misplaced Pages's policy to be neutral. Now if there were universal agreement in English-language sources that the Genesis creation myth is known as the Genesis creation narrative, it would be out of place to rename. However, that is not the case here. older ≠ wiser 23:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Following usage in reliable sources is being neutral, as neutral as we can be. Second-guessing usage in RS requires making non-neutral judgements. --B2C 19:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure if you're responding to my comment, but this essentially is the point I was trying to make. If reliable sources show mixed usage, then using the same neutral term for similar things per naming convention is just fine. But if one form is demonstrably preferred by reliable sources, then that would take precedence. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This probably also applies to flood myths (Genesis flood narrative]). Rwenonah (talk)

Yes, it does. I agree with you that this needs to be straightened out; the current situation reflects a systemic bias. Apparently en-wiki editors have been reluctant to call the Genesis versions "myths" even though all other such traditional/religious stories are labeled "myths'. I don't think this can be settled in a discussion among a few people on a policy talk page. Where should we take it? --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Support I think the problem here regards NPOV and its meaning. It seems some of us (including myself) think that maintaining NPOV means that we should take information from RS's and paraphrase/word them to be fully neutral in terminology. Others, such as Born2cycle believe that neutrality is maintained by strictly adhering to the wording of the RS's. Let's talk about this and get some other input from admins and come to a consensus regarding which definition of NPOV and its implementation we are going to use. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 21:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't normally turn the neutrality question over to outsiders to decide. We should be internally neutral; if English language sources treat these equivalent myths differently due to western bias, we do not need to import that bias into wikipedia. If we find a reliable source that says one culture's or religion's myth are more realistic than another, we can discuss that, but to just count primary non-neutral sources would not be the way to go. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Should this go to Misplaced Pages:NPOV? Rwenonah (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Neutrality in article content should not be conflated with neutrality in titles. Titles are just titles. Judgements about what references to topics are or are not offensive, neutral, problematic or anything else are inherently subjective, and are made by every RS that references that topic. We rely on those RS in aggregate to make these judgements. If the preponderance of RS are using a particular reference to a topic, then we do too. We follow the lead set by RS; we are not the leader. --B2C 15:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:NPOV might be the way to go. NPOV is one of the Five Pillars and NPOV applies to titles just as it does to everything else. In this case, it's clear that Genesis religious narratives have been titled differently from all other religious narratives, and that smells like a violation of NPOV. IMO this came about for two reasons: the English-language "reliable sources" we are using may not be religiously neutral (if tallied by Google hits they almost certainly are not); and many en-Wiki editors, possibly a majority, come from a Christian or Jewish tradition and consciously or unconsciously think "my religion is narrative, everybody else's religion is myth." Certainly any attempt to change "Genesis creation narrative" to "Genesis creation myth" would touch off a storm of protest from en-Wiki editors. Part of the problem is that the word "myth", while neutral in scholarly use, is a highly charged/judgmental word in everyday use. I do think the NPOV page, not the titling page, is the place to sort this out. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
In this case reliable sources show a mixture of different terms in reference to the same subject. Thus, we need one neutral term in order to be Consistent. In this case, we're probably seeing a manifestation of systemic bias ; if this were a different language/culturally based wiki we probably wouldn't be having this problem. If, however, you read NPOV guidelines, it clearly states that titles (Naming) fall under NPOV just like everything else on wikipedia. So yes, neutrality in titles should be conflated with neutrality in article content. Rwenonah (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I support consistency across all of these; as a Deist (and especially as an Agnostic Pandeist) my conviction is not that any of these accounts are false, but that they are all equally true and ought to be treated accordingly. I suggest dispensing with "myth," "story," and "narrative" altogether and simply going with "account." DeistCosmos (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, "account" suggests they're historical, that an eye-witness made a record.
We've been debating this for years. The problem, of course, is that my myths are true while yours are fables. The argument over following the wording of sources that reinforce my myths is an outgrowth of that. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd be glad to have them all titled "myth" but isn't objection to that what engendered this controversy? I do not perceive "account" as being especially more authority-imbuing than "story." DeistCosmos (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree. I don't see any advantage to "account", and it doesn't seem to have been used anywhere in this context that I can find. "Narrative" and "story" have the advantage of being neutral; they are terms that could apply to both fact and fiction. But again, I don't think we can decide this issue at this page; I think it needs broader participation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


I have an anecdote I think it worth sharing related to this discussion. When I was in high school in the mid-1990s, I took a senior-level college preparatory English and Humanities course. The teacher was also an adjunct professor at the local university in addition to his full-time secondary education duties in the high school. He graded our papers along the same expectations as any of the university's faculty would have, and his lectures were college-style as well. As a case in point, one day he starts off the class with, "your Bible is nothing but a myth. If that shocks you, you will need to get over it because this is how academics in college or at a university will discuss the subject." Personally, I think we should follow the scholarly style with "myth", but since this is a generalist publication, using "narrative" consistently may be the best alternative. (I do not support using "story" though; it just doesn't sound as professional.) Imzadi 1979 → 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I brought it up at Misplaced Pages talk:NPOV

Moved my comment from the NPOV Talk, since I think that's the wrong place to discuss it. My personal thoughts would be to consider the title's use in reliable sources and follow WP:COMMONNAME. If most sources refer to it as Genesis or Japanese creation narrative or story, then that tile might be appropriate, if they largely reference the Genesis or Japanese creation as a myth, then perhaps that. Personally, I'd probably try to avoid the entire myth / narrative / story from the titles if possible and just go with Genesis creation, Japanese creation, or some parenthetical alternative if it's not conflicting with other article titles. I expect using the term myth to describe currently held religious views is causing (and just asking for) contention and that one of the other terms would help keep the peace and is less judgmental (considering it a viewpoint described in Wikivoice). Morphh 02:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I see that we put that discussion in the wrong place. We put it at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view, when it should have gone to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Should we try again? --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I see that people mainly use that board to call attention to discussions elsewhere about NPOV. So I posted an invitation there for people to come here and weigh in. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that this must be decided on a case-by-case basis without reference to the validity of religious beliefs. A myth is a story, which can be told in many ways by many tellers. Cf. OED: "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon." A narrative is a specific text relating a story. Cf. OED: "An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account." If the article is about the story without being tied to a version in one specific text, the word "myth" should be used in the title. If the article is about a particular textual instantiation of a myth, the word "narrative" should be used in the title. In some cases there is only one textual instantiation of the myth, such as Genesis creation narrative. In such cases the subject of the article should determine the title, and it may be desirable to have two different articles, one on the myth and one on the narrative, if they'd be supportable by reliable sources. Of all the XXX creation myth articles we have, only Sumerian creation myth is comparable to Genesis creation narrative in that there's only a single textual source for it. The others are all about either straight-up myths out of oral traditions, so there are no canonical narratives or else, as in Japanese creation myth or Egyptian creation myths there are multiple textual sources either recounting a single myth (Japanese) or multiple myths (Egyptian). The Sumerian creation myth article is, in my opinion, misnamed because it's about a specific text that recounts what's one of many different Sumerian creation myths both extant and presumed lost that are discussed in the literature. The articles on those other Sumerian creation myths, when they exist, are (properly) named more specifically after the actual texts in which they're found. The question of whether our choice between "narrative," "myth," or "story" in the titles of all these articles connotes an endorsement of either their truth or their falsity is a red herring.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Does anybody really, really doubt that reliable sources can be found describing any and every theological theory of Creation as a "myth"? And though the degree to which such sources may so describe one proposition or the other may vary, if one goes back far enough one may find sources deemed reliable for their time decreeing heliocentric theory to be false, contradictory to scripture, and blasphemous. And yet who would fault modern scientists for hewing to an almost-religious certainty that heliocentrism is true? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Is this meant to be a reply to my comment?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        • By that definition of narrative, literally any story, be it oral or a canonical text, is one. Therefore any culture's myth is also a narrative or a collection of narratives and could be titled accordingly. Rwenonah (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
          • That's almost right but doesn't go quite far enough. Is it meant to be a reductio ad absurdum? Some cultures' myths are only transmitted orally. Then it would be possible to (a) write an article on the myth or (b) on individual oral traditions of the myth if there are more than one or (c) individual oral narrations of the myth if any of them were fixed enough to have been the subject of discussion in sources (this is a genuine possibility, see for instance Lord's The Singer of Tales for work on fixed oral versions of folklore) or (d) individual unique oral narrative recountings of the myth if they were preserved in audio form and met the GNG. Also note that I skipped some of the possibilities that would arise if a culture has more than one creation myth, but you can certainly generate them for yourself. If a culture's myth or myths have been written down and an individual written version is notable enough for an article then certainly there could be articles on (a) the myth in general and also (b) any of the individual narratives of the myth that meet the GNG. Then presumably we'd have articles titled XXX creation myth, XXX creation narrative 1, ... , XXX creation narrative n (or whatever names the individual narratives went by). Why is this a problem?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alf, that reply was at the whole discussion, but the heliocentrism part was really directed to the notion of the Big Bang as eliciting a religious level of belief. But speaking of reliable sources, thousands of google books hits have the exact term, "Genesis creation myth," so it really ought not be at all controversial to deem it a title supported by reliable sources. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. As you can see, I don't deny that there could be an article plausibly called "Genesis creation myth" based on reliable sources. I just deny that our Genesis creation narrative is that article. Are you sure that all those gbook hits are talking about the narrative, or are they talking about the myth?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The narrative in this instance is the myth. Look at Catcher in the Rye. There is a 'narrative' which is not a 'myth.' Or a first person account of the Battle of Bunker Hill, again a 'narrative' which is not a 'myth.' But this narrative, like a narrative of the earth being born from a giant cow, is a myth. Even if it were to be discovered to be true, it is still a myth. See the difference? DeistCosmos (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. This narrative is a distinct and notable narrative of the myth. It is not the myth itself. There are earlier narratives of (parts of) the myth, J and P, which have their own articles. There are later narratives of the myth based on this narrative. Probably every translation of the Genesis narrative is a new narrative of the myth. Some are undoubtedly notable enough to support articles, e.g. the Septuagint version, Jerome's vulgate, the Vulgata Clementina version, Luther's translation, the KJ translation, Douay-Rheims, other languages. I have no doubt that the narratives in all of these versions could support articles. Even the wikipedia article we're talking about is a distinct narrative of the myth, although not notable (yet?). Arguendo, assume that the life of Jesus is a myth. Then we have at least four narratives of that myth, each with its own article. See the difference?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, what you have revealed is a category error, which has become the basis for my vote to support moving this title -- a Creation myth is a kind of thing, and everything which is one is a something-"Creation myth" whether it is a narrative or other form. This is a whole concept, like "hot dog" being different from either a "hot" or a "dog" -- if one had a recipe for a certain kind of hot dog, one could not correctly title it a "hot recipe," instead of a "hot dog recipe." For that is what titling the narrative of a certain Creation myth a "Creation ____ narrative" instead of a " Creation myth narrative" does!! DeistCosmos (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You're quite confused. See my comment on the other page. You're right that "hot dog" is a kind of a thing. In fact, "hot dog" is a single word in the English language. That's not the case with "Creation myth." "Creation myth" is not a single word, it's a determiner+noun construction.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Alf, you say that the Vulgate and KJ are different narratives of the same myth. But our article is not about a specific version, so either it is the myth, or we need to remove the English examples and narrow the focus to the Hebrew narrative, in which case "Hebrew narrative of the Genesis creation myth" might be a better title. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I actually said "probably." When we write articles on books in non-English languages we often quote some of the text translated into English. There's nothing different here. Articles on specific translations are probably all doable, but the fact that they're doable isn't an argument against having an article on the narrative free from reference to the language its in. Our article is about the canonical Hebrew text and some of the issues that arise in general in translating it into English. It makes quite specific reference to the Hebrew text. Since the Hebrew text is the original it would be silly to qualify it as you propose. It would be like moving Don Quixote to Don Quixote in Spanish.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with myth, since it is more specific. Misplaced Pages has taken the position that Creationism is pseudoscience, so the work of finding sources is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages neutrality means presenting views in reliable sources according to their prevalence. It does not mean correcting the bias that exists in reliable sources. Since rs do not normally call the Genesis story a myth, neither should be.
If there is a bias in rs, I would say it is that the term myth is used to denigrate non-Abrahamic creation stories. That happened historically because Western scholars could not see heathen religions as having equal validity.
TFD (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
And that is ultimately the issue here. It's not so much which word we use, but the unequal application of words based on our own (or our references') biases. This is no different than calling 'primitive' nations 'tribes', their kings 'chiefs', their languages 'dialects', and their religions 'fetishes' – there's nothing wrong with using those words for actual tribes, chiefs, dialects, and fetishes, the problem is in unequal application. This is to be avoided per WP:WORLDVIEW. — kwami (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Google books and Google scholar (both of which have problems if not used carefully, show a far number of this for "creation myths" then "creation narratives". In addition, myth and narrative are not synonymous. In some cases there is a clear narrative - there is a narrative in Genesis and there is also a Genesis creation myth, but for many myths there is no single narrative, story, account, etc. The fact that Abrahamic theologians write about Christian and Jewish myths is often ignored in these debates which get turned into "If you use myth you are anti-religious" arguments. Are we really not going to have articles that use the term "Greek mythology"? :TFD, we have articles on Christian mythology and Jewish mythology - what do you want to call them? Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
There are various Jewish and Christian Midrashs that have the Creation as their setting (The idea that Satan/Lucifer was a "Fallen Angel" for example). Midrashs are stories that do not appear in the bible... and I don't think anyone would object to classifying them as "Myths". The question is whether that word should be used to describe the scriptural account told in Genesis? In the interest of NPOV, I would avoid it. The fact is, The word myth is seen as a pejorative... it is almost always used in the context of discussing the stories of religions other than one's own. Greek Mythology is called "mythology" because it isn't part of the Judeo-Christian religious belief. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
True, "narrative" and "mythology" are not synonymous. However, "narrative" and "myth", if used in reference to a specific myth, can be. Narrative is defined as "a spoken or written account of connected events; a story." Myth is defined as "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." The two definitions overlap significantly; every myth is also a narrative. Therefore, by calling a myth a narrative, we are simply using a vaguer definition which does not imply falseness. We need to consistently call all creation myths narratives, or consistently call them all myths, or we are treating them partially and with bias. Rwenonah (talk)
  • Support standardising the titles. "Myth" would be my preference, as it seems to be the term favoured in scholarly usage, but if that is too controversial "narrative" would be an acceptable alternative. Seeking consistency in article titles is not a case of impermissible activism on Misplaced Pages's part: it is supported by WP:Article Titles. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Specifically, I support "myth", because they are creation myths. There's no reason to use euphemisms. To insinuate that Christian mythology is not mythology is plain silly, and such favoritism does our readers a disservice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
OK... Let's analyze this with our WP:Article titles policy firmly in mind...
First, we need to determine whether the title is a NAME title or a DESCRIPTIVE title. If it is a NAME title, we then have the follow up question of whether WP:COMMONNAME applies. To answer the question we need to determine whether reliable sources use the exact string of words "Genesis Creation Myth" as a name for the story. Simply referring to Genesis as being a myth is not enough. (This is similar to how we deal with article titles about mass killings. While we can describe the event as being a massacre in the body of the text, we don't include the potentially POV word "massacre" in the title unless the event is routinely NAMED "The X Massacre" in sources).
Looking at the sources... there certainly are reliable sources that refer to Genesis as being a myth... but there are few (if any) that use the string "Genesis Creation Myth" as a NAME for that story. Therefor, I must conclude that our article title is a DESCRIPTIVE one. (and the follow up question of WP:COMMONNAME is moot).
Since this is a DECRIPTIVE title, it does not really matter whether Genesis is or is not a myth. The issue becomes whether including the word "myth" in the title is WP:NEUTRAL or not. That is a more complex issue. Certainly using that word will be offensive to fundamentalist Christians who believe in the literal truth of the story. It will also give pause (if not offend) those who see Genesis in a more allegorical light (believing that it contains spiritual/allegorical truth, if not factually "accuracy"). Others, of course, will have no problem with the use of the word. Being dispassionate, and considering all the differing viewpoints, I have to conclude that the word is NOT a neutral one.
That leads to yet a further question... is there some other word that is neutral? Story? Narrative? Account? I think they are all problematic. Someone will object no matter which word we use to describe Genesis.
So... let's think outside the box... can we come up with a title that will NEUTRALLY describe the topic. One that will not use any of the potentially POV words. I think we can... and (as an initial offering) would suggest something along the lines of Creation according to the Bible. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The issue isn't with that article, but with calling it "narrative" and virtually everything else "myth" (Genesis certainly is a myth in the academic sense of the word). If myth isn't neutral in reference to Genesis, how can we use it to describe Shinto? Or Ainu traditions? Rwenonah (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
My opinion... describing Shinto or Ainu traditions as "Myths" is equally Non-Neutral... and so we probably shouldn't use "myth" in such contexts either. I would go with Creation according to Shinto tradition, Creation according to Ainu tradition... (or generically: Creation according to X. Such a title would be completely neutral, and completely accurate. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Rwennonah. Myth is perfectly neutral. Abrahamic religions are not a special case merely because they are popular in the West. Academic sources refer to these stories as creation myths, and these are the kinds of reliable sources that I would trust. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirection of titles missing periods

Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 161#URLs ending in period cause issues when copied to clients such as email (version of 15:25, 21 April 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC) and 18:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Visually impaired users and disambiguation

Another editor has recently commented One consideration that probably doesn't get enough air time is that sight-impaired people will not read these articles, but will have them read to them. This has implications both for running text style and of course for article titles, and I think it's an excellent point.

But Misplaced Pages:Article titles#Using minor details to naturally disambiguate articles (shortcut WP:DIFFCAPS) currently reads in part Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail. Many such differences involve capitalization, separation or non-separation of components, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Red Meat and Red meat; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey. Many of these differences would not generally appear in spoken English. Red Meat and red meat is particularly difficult, and this is relevant to other current discussions regarding capitalisation.

Should article titles be disambiguated both in written and spoken English? This is a new idea to me, but I think it's a good one. Other comments? Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support We can't always ensure that all content is equally accessible (diagrams such as cladograms are important in biological articles, for example) but I agree that we can and should ensure that so far as possible article titles are not ambiguous in spoken English. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Wouldn't this require us to append explicit disambiguation to the title of any article whose subject shares its name with another notable entity (regardless of whether one is the primary topic)?
    In many instances, we don't even have unspoken formatting differences on which to rely. For example, the David Cameron article is about the Prime Minister of the UK, but several other notable persons share that name. To achieve the change suggested, wouldn't we need to move the article to David Cameron (politician) or similar? If not, why not? The only material difference that I see is the complete lack of titular disambiguation (as opposed to that which is written but not pronounced).
    Isn't this why we have hatnotes (for the benefit of all users, irrespective of visual acuity)? Both Red meat and Red Meat contain them, so what problem actually exists?
    Has anyone bothered to ask one or more users of screen readers to comment on the current setup and experiences therewith, or have we jumped straight to voting? —David Levy 09:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    It probably doesn't do any harm to jump straight to voting, nobody is likely to close this as a poll I hope (although I've been proved spectacularly wrong on this before). But it certainly wasn't what I had in mind for this section. Thanks for your contributions, and for the invitation to Graham87, that's more the sort of thing I was after. Andrewa (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, I regard this discussion as worthwhile. And yes, I certainly hope that no one would close it as a poll. I'm sure that we all "support" making the site accessible to people with visual impairments, but it's important to understand what problems actually exist before we attempt to solve them. —David Levy 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Well put. I only wish editors would apply that last point to all discussions! Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I've invited Graham87 (a screen reader user and WikiProject Accessibility participant) to comment. —David Levy 09:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the current setup is fine as is. While it's true that screen readers don't distinguish between capital and lower-case letters, the hatnotes are there to help the readers if they're in the wrong place. Graham87 10:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks, exactly the sort of feedback I was after. But it raises a point which has also been raised elsewhere: Should we avoid such disambiguation in running text? There are no hatnotes to help there. And, if we avoid relying on these features to disambiguate in running text, should we then also avoid them in article titles, for consistency? That first question mainly for Graham (but other comments welcome of course), the second for anyone. Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    We certainly should avoid relying solely on differences in capitalization/punctuation/type to distinguish concepts in running text. Unlike article titles, no parenthetical disambiguation (or hatnote) is required to accomplish this. To touch on the subject of birds (in the hope that this doesn't ruffle any feathers), most readers (apart from those familiar with specialist conventions) won't realize that "Common Blackbird" refers to a specific species and "common blackbird" refers to any blackbird species that's common. The solution is to explicitly describe the former (irrespective of whether its name is capitalized) as a specific species and avoid using the phrase "common blackbird" to describe another species. (Instead, we can state that it's "a common species of blackbird" or "a species of blackbird common in ", etc.)
    Likewise, we shouldn't state that someone is "a fan of red meat" or "a fan of Red Meat" without elaboration. We should explicitly indicate that he/she enjoys "eating red meat" or "reading the comic strip Red Meat".
    This obviously isn't applicable to article titles, so no additional consistency is called for. We just need to make sure that an article's prose is clear and all appropriate hatnotes are in place. —David Levy 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Again, very well put I think. Andrewa (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: what you're suggesting is that we not only meet the technical limitations of Misplaced Pages by disambiguating topics that would otherwise have the same title, but also go ahead and qualify unambiguous titles if they are ambiguous in spoken English. This includes the minor differences in Red Meat and red meat as well as homophones like birth and berth. I do not think this is a good idea; screen-reading software has the ability to spell out words when needed, and readers and listeners have the ability to parse ambiguity by context, so they don't share Misplaced Pages's technical limitation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Please don't personalise, particularly when you have the wrong person! Good points apart from that. Andrewa (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    Please don't personalize, particularly when you have the wrong person! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • identify a clear problem first I assume mediawiki or the foundation has someone responsible for accessibility issues. They likely have a way of reaching out to wikipedians or readers who use other ways of getting our content. We need to work through them and have them identify a specific problem, and then if they aren't able to fix it with software, they should come here and say 'hey, could we change some titles such that...' In the absence of a clearly identified problem we should not start working out solutions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Definitely agree with that last sentence, see above. Andrewa (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I want to create a new article, but...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Revised proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation at the WikiProject Comics Manual of Style

A revised Request for Comment has been made regarding the policy compliance of title disambiguation for articles under WikiProject Comics. Please join the discussion here (original here). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

NATURALDIS and company names

You may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) on whether having company names as part of article titles constitute advertising. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The question of "advertizing" is a bit of a red herring, in my opinion... WP:COMMONNAME is what should govern the debate. Some of our articles on spacecraft include the company name (Example: Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar)... others don't (example: Orion (spacecraft)). It really depends on whether the sources use the company name when referring to the craft. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
That's not the only consideration, though. Unless Boeing's name is prepended almost always when referring to that vehicle, there's really no reason to have Boeing in that article title when X-20 Dyna-Soar would work. Something even shorter than that might; how many X-20s are there? How many Dyna-Soars? People in favor of one name or another can sometimes be good a digging up sources that favor their version of a name and ignoring sources that don't, on the hopes that no one will bother to do counter-research to contradict them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  20:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, concision is a factor, but it does not trump commonname. The relevant standard here is not "almost always". The relevant standard is "most common". If the longer name is used more commonly than shorter name, in reliable sources, then we go with the longer name. Only if it's a wash per Common Name do we apply the WP:Concision razor (an essay written by Yours Truly that reflects policy-based reasoning that applies here) to settle the issue. --B2C 22:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The 'most commonly usedname' for virtually all aircraft is "Manufacturer+Designation (when appropriate)+Name (when appropriate)". This is one of the reasons M-D-N was determined by WP:AIR to be the preferred naming format reccomended by the project for aircraft article titles (the other being consistency, as before there were aircraft without names using naming formats like Martin XB-51, while those with were at formats like B-57 Canberra). And regardless, the contention that the company name is somehow "advertising" is the WP:BATTLEGROUND of one solitary editor who refuses to stop beating the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not citing B2C's in-progress and frequently criticized essay at all (though I need to read it again and see if it's improved in response to the criticisms). We've had the principle to prefer a short name over a long one when both will suffice for years; there's nothing new about the idea at all. WP:COMMONNAME does not exist in a vacuum, and is always balanced against other factors when they arise, verbosity being one of them.

Avoiding the unnecessary addition of manufacturer/publisher names to article titles is not at all just one random editor's tendentious fight; it's normal WP practice. Very, very few articles are at such names, for two reasons: It's rarely helpful, and it looks like (and encourages) use of WP for promotional activities. I doubt I have to observe, especially at this page, that the number of wikiprojects making "we do it this way, and you can just go soak your head if you disagree" pronouncements, as if they were their own sovereign entities, is getting really, really tiresome. While it's quite likely that article names that begin with the manufacturer name followed by more details are sometimes, maybe even often, useful for aircraft (among some other things), it's certainly not always helpful. No wikiproject has a special right to force all other editors to use a naming scheme some people at the wikiproject prefer; this is a matter of clear policy, under WT:AT, WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (WP:NPOV is also frequently implicated in these "do it our way" campaigns, based usually upon some specialist usage that has jack to do with encyclopedia writing; see WP:SSF for a better-accepted essay covering that problem in detail).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  01:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

SMC, this isn't a LOCALCONSENSUS issue... it is not a case of one WikiProject making up its own rules contrary to "standard WP practice". In fact, when it comes to vehicle related topic areas, including the manufacturers name seems to be the standard practice. For example, Look through Category:automobiles and Category:Motorcycles... the inclusion of the manufacturer's name is actually routine.
What is making the Lynx article problematic is that it isn't a aircraft... it is a spacecraft... and most of our articles on other spacecraft have not included the manufacturers name. However, that omission is due to the fact that, until recently, there hasn't really been a single manufacturer for spacecraft. Until recently, spacecraft were built by governments, not corporations. That is beginning to change. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Is local consensus at MOS:COMIC overriding policy?

FYI – There's a related but not completely overlapping active RfC about this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Comics#rfc2. Some may want to centralize discussion there.

MOS:COMIC at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (comics)#Disambiguation states:

the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comics, including creators, publications, and content, is "(comics)" ... In general, when naming an article, use the name itself ... unless that leads to ambiguity, in which case, follow with "(comics)" (e.g. Robin (comics)).

This is being interpreted this to mean that all articles under the {{WikiProject Comics}} banner, regardless of scope, should use (comics) by default when disambiguation is needed.

It is also stated that articles for characters that began life in comics must focus on the comics aspect of that character, segregating appearances in other media to separate articles:

Is this within the boundaries of what a WikiProject can mandate? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the conflict or override is, or what you mean by mandate. WikiProjects do normally work on title guidelines to make their titles more consistently structured, so unless you see a conflict with a more widely agree titling guideline, it's probably OK. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: It's not a consistency issue—WikiProject Comics is saying that articles listed until multiple Projects (say, {{WikiProject Comics}} and {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}) should use (comics) as disambiguation by default, and is using that as a move rationale for articles disambiguated with (character) or something else. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Normally I'm the first to jump on the collective a of wikiprojects getting WP:OWNy, but I'm not sure I see a real problem here. Characters and whatnot that start as comics-based are almost invariably most notable still in that context, no matter how popular movies or TV shows about them are. Take the character Rick Grimes from The Walking Dead. It's a different but similar and same-named character in the comics vs. the TV series, so if the characters need articles apart from the comic series and TV series (doubtful) it would not make sense to have the TV character covered in the comics article or vice versa. I.e., separate articles with their own disambiguation makes sense. I don't personally agree with using " (comics)" as a disambiguator, but I've given up on that (it's more objectionable with something like " (baseball)", e.g. Mike Smith (baseball), since Mike Smith is not a baseball and is not a brand of baseballs. The wretchedness of that sort of parenthetical disambiguation (vs., say, " (baseball player)") isn't as overwhelming with " (comics)". Anyway, Is there a specific example where the comics project is doing something objectionable?? A general objection to a wikiproject having a fair amount of influence over the shape of articles they consider in-scope doesn't seem sustainable here. What's the particular bad thing happening, and where? Demonstrate the problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  01:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It's come up a couple of times: the "Wolverine" article was moved to Wolverine (character) per a consensus, and then moved back to Wolverine (comics) per another consensus, where objections that "Fictional characters use "(character)"" and that "WP:LOCALCONSENSUS used by comic articles should be changed to the standardized version used by fictional characters" were trumped with "The standard is to have (comics) in the title, not (character)" per MOS:COMIC (I wasn't involved in either of these discussions). There's an ongoing debate over at Talk:Hydra (Marvel Comics) as well. The issue isn't over (character) per se (all parites have rejected (character) in the Hydra discussion), but it has been acknowledged that (character) is the standard disambiguator for characters from other media (books, film, TV, plays)—everywhere but WP:CMC.
(As for the use of "comics", the word is an uncountable noun that refers to the medium. You can't refer to "a comics", but you can refer to the "comics medium" or "an expert in comics"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Worth looking into, but I decline to get into this any further here, since there's already an RfC ongoing about this but it might be better to let the ongoing RfC conclude first, so discussion isn't fragmented. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  02:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Updated: 06:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Redundant with RfC?

Resolved
  • There's no reason to fork the discussion. There's an active poll/RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Comics#rfc2 about this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  02:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    Not a fork—that discussion is about a proposed rewording; this about levels of consensus. Either could fail and have no effect on the other. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Converted by SMcCandlish from edit summary to comment
    Hair-splitting. The entire purpose of the RfC is to determine whether WikiProject Comics's preferred way of naming and disambiguating topics has consensus or should be altered. You reasonably can't then side-swipe that discussion by coming to another forum to challenge the consensus on the wikiproject's naming "guideline" on a tiny bit broader basis. It's like doing a RM on something and engaging in a big debate about that, but also taking it to AfD at the same time in an attempt to have the article merged into something else, as if the RM were moot already. Even if it's not blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping, it's still an unhelpful and potentially confusing fragmenting of discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  05:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the other discussion. That should be an OK place to work this out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Comics is agreed on the "preferred way of naming and disambiguating topics"—the proposal was not to change, add, or delete any of the agreed-on disambiguation terms—it's long since ceased to be debated.
The intention of the proposed rewording was to discourage those unaware with policy from thinking that an article that falls under {{WikiProject Comics}} should be disambiguated by default as (comics). Little did I know that members of the Project actually do believe that—an entirely separate question, concerning global policy, which is why I brought it here for clarification. The issues have little hope of being solved if the participants in the discussion are talking at cross purposes. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, and I think we actually both agree on both of the problems raised by the wikiproject's expectations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  02:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wording for the Subject preference RfC at the WP:NCP talk page

Over a month ago an RfC on subject preference was initiated at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)#RfC: Subject preference.

In one of the subsections of that RfC a new wording to be included in the guideline is proposed: Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)#Approach.

It was suggested to avoid mere local consensus, so this proposal has been listed at Template:Centralized discussion.

Feel free to chime in! --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Weighting of sources in determining WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

When we look at usage in reliable sources to determine WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, should we be weighting the sources? Is usage in some reliable sources, like books, more influential than usage in other reliable sources, like newspapers?

My view is that we're trying to determine the name most users would expect to be used to refer to the topic at issue. So in that context I don't see why some reliable sources should be weighted more than others... I mean, as long as it's a reliable source, it should count the same. No?

This is relevant in situations like what appears to be happening at Talk:Oh Baby, where a relatively obscure topic happens to have more coverage in (archived, low-circulation) books than the more-likely-to-be-sought (based on page-view counts) article. --B2C 16:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To my mind, source quality should be a factor in determining a COMMONNAME ... its just not necessarily the deciding factor. I have no problem giving a bit of extra weight to high end sources... but that extra weight would not necessarily out weigh raw numbers. Essentially, source quality makes for a good tie-breaker, when the source usage is somewhat mixed.
Here is how I think it works: First look through all reliable sources (regardless of where they fall on the quality scale of reliable sources). If one name stand out as being used significantly more often... use that. If there several names that are common... take a second look at the source usage, factoring in the quality of the sources... if one of the choices is clearly favored by sources on the high end of the quality scale... use that. and if even the high end sources are mixed... then we have to say that there is no COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk)-
As for determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC... I am not sure how source quality would be an issue. It's more a question of whether one topic is significantly more WP:NOTABLE than another. Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I would contend that books are highly overrated as a source. It is much easier for the average individual to get a book published than it is to get published in a peer-reviewed journal, or to get a regular job as a journalist with a reputable newspaper or other media outlet. There are plenty of books in print that are filled with outrageous, incorrect, and completely unsupported claims and usages. bd2412 T 23:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I have not necessarily been talking about books. What constitutes a "quality" source really depends on the subject matter. For example, in an article relating to pop music, a magazine like Rolling Stone would be a high end "quality" source. A magazine like Teen Beat would be at the other end of the spectrum. Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not sure that we should be in the business of making those judgments. Obviously, there are sources like the supermarket tabloids for which objective evidence of their absence of reliability exists, but short of that kind of unreliability, I wouldn't consider a Rolling Stone to be more authoritative a source for the common name of a band, song, or other music topic than Teen Beat. bd2412 T 01:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It's well covered at WP:RS. There are many factors, and being a "book" isn't much. Whether it's a primary source or secondary source is also very important. Much as it says at WP:NOR, primary sources, whether a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal, or a ballot paper, are easily misused. Independent, reliable, reputable secondary sources, and specifically the ones actually, explicitly, supporting the article content, should be weighted most highly. The parallels with Misplaced Pages-notability are not co-incidental. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:RS is about evaluating reliability of sources for the purpose of establishing veracity of information in deciding what to include in article context. In that context it makes sense to weight different types of sources differently, and WP:RS does cover that well.

But in title-decision making we just look at usage in sources to help us figure out what is going to be natural and recognizable to our readers (when it's not obvious). In that context, what is the point of distinguishing sources based on quality? How is that going to help us determine which is more natural or recognizable? --B2C 04:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've found that not to be true at wikipedia. We do not look at source usage as the "determining" factor in titling articles. Maybe it's written that way in policy and guidelines, but in practice titles are based on a majority of editors preferences, regardless of sourcing. Whether that's good or bad doesn't really matter... it's the way it works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, just maybe, "we" should do things a little more consistently with the rest of the project. Maybe article titling should not be a separate "expertise", but something natural to content-writers. Distinguishing sources by quality is a base skill that should be applied to all questions relating to content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, why? Distinguishing sources by quality makes sense for content veracity determination. It makes no sense for determining what term is natural and recognizable. Are the higher quality reliable sources, like scholarly journals, going to use names that are more likely to be natural and recognizable than the names used by lower quality sources, like newspapers? If so, how? If not, why distinguish by source quality in the context of title determination? --B2C 06:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Because Misplaced Pages should be guided by its sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Why? Why should WP be guided by its sources? I suggest there are two different answers, depending on whether you're talking about content or title determination.

For content determination WP should be guided by its sources to make sure the material is accurate and verifiable. For this higher quality sources are even better.

But for title determination, WP should be guided by the sources because we presume our readers also read the sources, or at least the usage they are familiar with is likely to be reflected in the sources, and so terminology usage in the sources is going to be natural and recognizable to them. Distinguishing among sources qualities simply makes no sense in this context. --B2C 07:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I get to the same basic result through different reasoning. If Misplaced Pages distinguished which were the most "high level" sources relative to a topic for purposes of determining a name, we would probably have an article on Equus ferus caballus rather than horse. We seem to go in the opposite direction from that. I completely agree that Misplaced Pages is guided by its sources, but I don't think it is within our power as neutral arbiters to be assigning "high" and "low" level rankings to sources for purposes of determining a common name. bd2412 T 13:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Poor example... we don't have a significant majority of high end sources that use "Equus Ferus caballus" over "Horse" (in fact the majority of high end sources use "horse"), so that isn't a case where source quality would be a factor (and even if a significant majority of high end sources did use "Equus Ferus caballus" instead of "hourse" the sheer volume of sources that use "horse" would out weigh the issue of source quality). Again, commonness in high quality sources (call it QUALITYCOMMONNAME) simply makes for a good tie breaker when the over-all usage is somewhat mixed.
B2C, You seem to be looking at this issue as an "always" or "never" thing. It isn't. No one is saying that source quality is always the determining factor. We are simply saying that source quality is a factor to be looked at, and can sometimes be a determining factor (in a few rare cases).
Choosing the best title for an article is not an exact science with firm rules... instead it is a very inexact art. We intentionally don't take a formulaic approach to choosing article titles. We intentionally don't say "factor X always out weighs factor Y"... because while X may often (even usually) out weigh Y... there are always going to be situations where Y should out weigh X. I know that some people want this policy to settle every dispute... it never will... because this policy intentionally makes having disputes part of the process. We do list several factors that should be considered when holding a dispute (and it is an incomplete list)... but we intentionally don't say which factor is the most important. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Choosing titles is hardly a science at all, so of course it's inexact. But we have some control over where it falls on the exact-inexact spectrum, and the closer we are to the exact endpoint the fewer conflicts we should have. The problem with saying sometimes we consider source quality and sometimes we don't is that it moves us towards the inexact end of the spectrum, a cost, for no benefit, so far as I can tell. It means people can favor A over B because A is more common in "high quality" sources, while B is more common in reliable sources overall, and then the argument is about whether to go with usage in "higher quality" sources or with usage in RS overall... and can that ever really matter? Either way the result is a title commonly used in RS. Why not just pick the rule easier to follow (don't discern among sources), and go with that?

Yes, the process is inexact, but why make it even more inexact than it has to be? --B2C 16:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Non English titles - what the heck is going on???

Talk:Dang_Huu_Phuc#Requested_move_2 is a move proposal to move:

Above that, there is an RM discussion from 2011 where the no-diacritics version was favored, and so it stands today. But now people are saying this type of move is the norm. What ever happened to WP:USEENGLISH? I have no idea how to read, much less pronounce, the symbols on the right. There is no evidence that reliable English sources use these symbols. The argument that we have Unicode and they don't is a poor excuse. We have the whole Cyrillic alphabet available to us in Unicode, but that does not mean we're going to move all Russian names of people and places to Cyrillic titles. We follow usage in reliable English sources, period. What the heck is going on??? --B2C 16:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki policy or guidelines are one thing, while today's wiki usage and rfc's are another. Per RfC, no matter how common a name is spelled using the English alphabet, and no matter if the English sources are 99 to 1 in favor of the non-diacritic spelling, we are banned from using that spelling...not only in the title, but in even mentioning it exists as a common spelling anywhere else in the article. I thought you knew this by now? I've learned to live with this censoring as part of the modern wikipedia so you should probably move on yourself and accept that is the way it's done here now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I must have slept through something. When/where did that happen? Outrageous! --B2C 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The last one I recall was in an RfC on Censorship of the English alphabet. Like I said, the banishment is here to stay so it's best to move on, live with it, and edit other things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The short story is that some editors began to interpret WP:RELIABLESOURCES (and in particular, the phrase "reliable for the statement being made") to mean that, in the area of diacritics, the only reliable source is one that is proven capable of using diacritics. A non-diacritic-using source is disregarded as unreliable for proving English-language usage or orthography. User:Fyunck(click) is correct that that view has won the day in the trenches, although there still has not been a WP-wide RFC that has settled the issue to my knowledge. For more insight, contact User:In ictu oculi, who has championed the pro-diacritics cause for a few years now. I could also point you to several RMs where this has been at issue. Dohn joe (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Although there may not have been a WP-wide RfC on the specific issue of titles, the RfC Fyunck(click) refers to above seems pretty clear. If the form without diacritics can't be mentioned in the article, then clearly it can't be the title. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That RFC takes for granted that native diacritics should be used, and only asked if the non-diacritics version of a name should also be used. That's a different question from whether and in what circumstances diacritics should be used in the first instance. Note that the closer of that RFC explicitly punted on the issue of what to do with letters that differ between English and the native language - þ→th, for example. There are informal understandings - that an article on a person who has taken on citizenship or spent a significant amount of time in a country whose language lacks diacritics may drop the diacritics. There was also an RFC that In ictu points to on adopting Vietnamese diacritics usage in particular. I just have not seen a WP-wide RFC that comprehensively addresses diacritics usage. We may not need one (although it would be nice to coordinate real-life usage with WP:DIACRITICS, and my guess is that only an RFC could do that), but I don't think there has been one. Dohn joe (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This is true... for that particular RfC. But in the tone of that RfC, in article after article, move request after move request, the majority of editors (including administrators) has been quite clear on what they want. Unless a person lives in the US and/or it can be shown that they personally use the English spelling of their names (i.e. their facebook account, twitter, personal website content, signature) then any form of the English alphabetized spelling is censored on wikipedia. It cannot be used, no matter the sourcing, in titles or in prose. So again we should probably move along to edit other interesting topics. One thing that could stand an update is the section at WP:NOTCENSORED as it is untrue and out of date with the current practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I think calling this censorship is ridiculous. Rather, there is a general move to use the appropriate diacritics, even if in some cases the majority of english-language sources do not use said diacritics. I think this is different than other debates around what is a "preferred" name, etc, and is more a rather of correctness and accuracy. If a given source does not use diacritics at all, we cannot use that source to determine if diacritics *would* have been used by them if they could.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes - that is exactly how I described the position in a nutshell. But the point is, that's not the only rational position, and it's not the position of WP:DIACRITICS. It also doesn't take into account some of the nuances I mentioned above. And it doesn't change that, right now, as it has been for a long time, diacritics policy on WP is ad hoc, or at least unwritten.

And yes, censorship is a far cry from just not having things come out the way one would prefer - using terms lke that does nothing to advance any discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: The assumption you are making here is that if a source does not use diacritics it is because they can't, not because they choose not to. Anywhere else in Misplaced Pages, you would have to source that assumption in each and every case. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
We have plenty of examples of this - especially if you're talking about vietnamese diacritics, for which printing presses in some cases would choose not to use either because technically impossible or financially unrealistic. The best way to determine such cases is when they use vietnamese diacritics for some names, but not for others - like if they write Đặng Hữu Phúc was born in Vietnam (and not Việt Nam). There are also problems with using search engine results, which actually can strip off diacritics, as well as OCR. I've participated in some of these debates and claims were made that book X used name Y without diacritics, but on close examination of the book, it DID actually use the diacritics, but the summary by google books was misleading. I don't think we should conflate COMMONNAME issues around diacritics with things like Deadmaus vs Joel Zimmerman, since there isn't a difference in technological capability or editorial style around using one or the other.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It is censorship. It is banishment. Many sources don't use diacritics because they choose to follow English language customs. And there are sources that use both diacritics and non-diacritics... they don't count either. It is what the majority of editors want that counts, not sourcing. And you're kidding yourself by saying "some cases" or "the majority of English-language sources." You make it sound like it's close in the sourcing when it's not. Unless it's the "Inquirer" we do not pick out our sources, we use all of them. Now if this happens on only some articles or some spellings you might have a point about censorship. If we are permanently stopped from using the English spelling anywhere in an article, everywhere, it is what it is no matter how candy-coated you'd like to make it. It's not a discussion on changing things. I'm not advocating a change back... I'm simply letting B2C know how and why it works here now so he can move on to better things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
If you read that RFC, that was specifically about whether there was any use or value to the reader in repeating ascii-titles in the lede, like Đặng Hữu Phúc (Dang Huu Phuc). There was a broad consensus against this, since it was felt the reader didn't need to see the stripped-down version. Again, calling this censorship means you misunderstand what the term censorship means.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You are reading that RfC way too narrowly and naively, without the understanding of what went on before or after. And you are 100% wrong about the lead only. The Englsish spelling can't be mentioned anywhere, anytime. It can't be in the title, it can't be in the prose. It is you who aren't comprehending that wikipedia expurgates things based on what editors want. Go ahead and ask the many contributors to that RfC what they intended with it and the 1000s of move requests before and after. English alphabet spellings are banished if it can be shown that a source spells the name differently in their home country, regardless of the number of English language sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how you read that RfC, it's fucking nuts. Worse. It mocks Misplaced Pages. Look at this. Hồ Ngọc Hà. What the hell? That's the title in the English Misplaced Pages. The ENGLISH Misplaced Pages. I kid you not! What a fucking farce. That is not English. That is not recognizable. It is certainly not natural. When I Google that gobbledygook I get a bunch of Vietnamese sites. But when I search for "Ho Ngoc Ha", I get English websites. It makes no sense to use non-English terms in an English encyclopedia. I've seen plenty of bullshit on WP before, but this has to take the cake. I can't believe people who care about the integrity and reputation of this project are allowing this absurdity to continue. --B2C 21:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I like the diacritics as a more accurate portrayal of the names. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
B2C, I understand that you feel very strongly about the situation, but please take it down a notch (or twelve). This is actually an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. There has already been a great deal of invective and histrionics over this issue in its many incarnations over the years - more of its like will not serve to do anything but harden hearts and inhibit open dialogue. If you want to have a discussion, fine - but this is not the tone to start with. Dohn joe (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
And that's cool @Casliber... some will agree with you and some will not. But it doesn't matter anymore if you or I like them or not. It's been resolved. We MUST use them at wikipedia regardless of sourcing, and any English alphabetic form is not allowed to be shown anywhere unless we have it from the person in question's own lips. That is what we follow here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)