Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blueboar (talk | contribs) at 17:09, 9 April 2010 (→Which takes precedence: Common name or Manual of Style?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 of merged pages: Common names 1, 2, 3; Naming conflict 1, 2; Precision

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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.

Self-identifying names controversy

This discussion is being started following comments in the "Unagreed change" section above:

In the policy section "Common names", Pmanderson recently altered the longstanding agreed sentence beginning "When there is no common English name..." (use the name the entity calls itself), to "When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English to have a common English name..." He listed this in the edit summary as a "clarification."

I attempted to restore the original wording, since this was not a clarification but an unagreed change to the policy. Official, and self-identifying names have always had a significant role in naming choices on Misplaced Pages. And PMAs new wording does not reflect actual Misplaced Pages practice. However my edit was reversed.

When the former page "Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict", (which dealt in detail with self-identifying names), was merged into this one, the principle that was settled on was that self-identifying names can be used as a factor to help decide what name is chosen when there is no clear "common" name for an entity. There was NOTHING about "only when the entity is rarely mentioned in English."

Since what is proposed is indeed a new change to the policy wording agreed, and which was put in place at the merger, then solid proof of broad community support for such a change is required. I would ask what reason there is for such a change, what proof there is of the practice of wikipedia editors reflecting this change, and what proof there is that this change does not in fact run directly against the practice of wikipedia editors, and against the direction of other guidance? Also we need to discover what sort of wording on self-identifying names will satisfy the needs of all contributors. Xandar 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide an example (or several) of subjects that

1. are commonly discussed in English-language sources
2. do not have a common English name and
3. have a single name by which the group normally self-identifies

so I can figure out how your preferred system works in practice? I'm having trouble understanding how criteria #1 is happening without #2 happening. Are the sources in #1 discussing "those nameless people" or something like that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in re-discussing this for the gazillionth time. For the record: I endorse Pmanderson's change; I'm not convinced it has the import Xandar claims for it; and even if it does I still support it, because I think Xandar's position on self-identifying names is horribly misguided, which is about what you would expect from a position extrapolated from a single cherished article title. Hesperian 02:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I too endorse PMA's wording... whether you want to call it a change, a clarification, or something else.

In fact, I would go further... I would change the second part of the sentence as well... my suggested change in bold):

• "When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English sources to have a common English name, it is acceptable to use the most common non-English name that is mentioned in reliable non-English sources."

In other words... we should always follow the reliable sources, but we give preference to English sources over non-English language sources where possible (since this is the English version of Misplaced Pages). Blueboar (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting idea. I think it might exacerbate some of our existing problems in places like Silesia or the South Tyrol, where the fundamental debate is "which foreign language do we use?" The present wording, and Blueboar's emendation, answer some of that with "whichever English sources follow", but we are too close now to "are there more German or Polish books on-line?". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Silesia or South Tyrol, there are numerous English language sources that can be used. So there would be no need to ask whether there are more German or Polish sources on line. The issue of "German vs Polish" is moot... we use English. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

He didn't mean "Silesia" or "South Tyrol" themselves, but the various (relatively obscure) places in them and people in their histories, for which there is often no significant body of English sources.--Kotniski (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know... but even relatively obscure places will appear in English language sources... atlases, guidebooks, road maps, tourist pamphlets etc.

OK... I suppose there could be some tiny three house hamlet that is so small and insigificant it does not appear in any English source... on the other hand, it is unlikely that such a place will appear in a non-english language source either. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So what exactly is your proposal for, if you don't think such cases ever arise?--Kotniski (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

For other situations, where there might not be any English sources we can use, and thus no name that is commonly used by English sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the previous ambiguous wording is not the way do this. If you want to clarify or change the use of self-identifying names please propose something that will do that.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't care how much hesperian doesn't want to discuss this unagreed change, or how much Blueboar personally wishes to change the wording. The simple fact is that we amalgamated the pages on the proviso of an agreed compromise wording. PMA has changed that wording unilaterally to one that would virtually eliminate the usage of self-identifying names. HE and those. like Hesperian, who support him, are therefore the ones who have reopened this controversy, not me. If Hesperian doesn't want to discuss changes made to policy his solution is simple. Leave the page.

On the substantive issue. It is clear that self-identifying names ARE used across Misplaced Pages in terms well outside those which PMAnderson wishes to limit them to. In other words, the introduced new wording does NOT reflect Misplaced Pages practice, but seems to have been introduced to back the POV of certain regulars on this page. Numerous examples of the usage of self-identifying names have been presented in the previous debates on this issue. If it is wished, we can re-introduce them here.

In answer to SaskatchewanSenator, I did not write the previous compromise wording, and am not married to it. What is needed is wording that states the principle which was earlier established in discussion that Self-idintifying names are a valid naming principle where there is no clear and accurate "common name". Xandar 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, I understand that you thought a balanced deal had been cut, and that you say your agreement to this deal was based on certain key features being handled in an acceptable (to you) fashion, and that these key features no longer exist.

However, there are no binding deals on Misplaced Pages. None. Even if there were incontrovertible evidence of the deal, the existence of a prior consensus is completely irrelevant. If there's no agreement to include self-identification now, in this way and on this page, then it doesn't matter what agreements were or weren't made yesterday.

So you can start from the top and tell me what practical difference this change makes, or you can give up in dismay, but please stop claiming that consensus isn't allowed to change. If you want me to understand the 'substantive issue' that you're claiming, please name a couple of specific, concrete, extant articles whose names 'should' change as a result of this change to the advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Xandar, kindly do not mischaractise my comments. I did not say that I do not want to discuss this. I said that "I'm not interested in re-discussing this for the gazillionth time."

On the substantive issue, it does not suffice to show that "self-identifying names ARE used across Misplaced Pages"; it must be shown that self-identifying names are used because they are self-identifying, despite other guidance suggesting that some other title ought to be used. And the examples given must be largely uncontroversial; i.e. sufficiently consensual that we can take guidance from it here. This has been going on for months now, and despite many requests, still no-one has given a single example where there is consensus to use a self-identifying name because it is self-identifying, instead of the name that would have been chosen under the present wording. Without examples, you're just blowing hot air. Hesperian 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no clear and accurate common name"?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples of self-identifying article names

User:What, the reason I think that self-identifying article names should take precedence over common names is because I think entities have the right to call themselves whatever they choose. The current wording juxtaposes what is common versus what is self-identified. What is the benefit of the common name? I see no benefit that is superior to an entity being able to name itself. Why create a conflict when none should exist.

What is being proposed are situations where the common, i.e. the majority, is allowed to determine what an entity shall be called and the entity's desires be damned.

There is no logic behind the "use the common name" brigade except, "I like it that way".

Let's look at two examples that demonstrate why the old wording focusing on self-identification is preferred and one where the current wording creates silliness:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the chosen name of this organization; however, Mormon Church is by far the more common name.
2. Burma, this is one of the stupidities that exists BECAUSE of this illogical rule. Editors argue that Burma is the common name, but the common name by all sources is Myanmar. More importantly, Myanmar is the name the nation has chosen for itself for over twenty years. The only reason the title Burma exists is because editors have ignored facts and used this silly reasoning presented here.

Yes, I know my language is unhelpful, but I really detest this type of stupidity. It is one of the weaknesses of Misplaced Pages. What is valid and important is that self-identified names are superior to what is "common". The common is too easily misinterpreted and misapplied. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to inform and teach factual, accurate information. We succeed when when you self-identified names. --Rider 03:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that those who say "There is no logic behind the 'use the common name' brigade except, 'I like it that way'" can themselves offer no reason for self-identifying names other than 'I like it that way'.

... unless the statement "entities have the right to call themselves whatever they choose" is meant to be read as "entities have the right to force everyone else to call them whatever they choose". If that is meant, then it is merely a restatement of a position, not an argument in support of it.

As an uncontroversial test case that Storm Rider and Xandar have no vested interest in, I ask them which is a better article title, Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of several Ships, being the name chosen for that book by its author; or Gulliver's Travels, being the name foisted on it by the majority?

Hesperian 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Storm Rider. I really appreciate it.

Your first example strikes me as weak. Many reliable sources commonly identify the LDS by its formal name in formal contexts. Many members self-identify as belonging to "the Mormon Church" in informal contexts (e.g., chatting with non-LDS neighbors). So I don't think that "LDS vs Mormon" is useful to us in this discussion, because it's a choice between two names that are both commonly used in sources and both applied by members to self-identify. IMO the distinction it illustrates (admirably) is "formal vs informal".

Does my analysis make sense to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The second example is also weak, in a way characteristic of "self-identification": who is the self involved? The present Government of Myanmar, a military dictatorship? or the Burmese exiles, who can plausibly (but not certainly) claim to represent a majority?

Both are defensible - and I am not arguing for either, merely that both are defensible; but "self-identification" would require us to adopt one or other point of view, while our test of recognizability does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the distinction between "formal" and "informal" names is usefull, but not something we can put in a policy. Which name we actually use is often a matter of consensus, ballancing the various criteria we currently lay out.

Take the example of our article on Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA)... as cumbersome and awkward as this seems, it is actually the informal name for the subject. The formal name is the far more cumbersome and awkward: "The Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World) of the Inspectors General Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America" In this case the formal name is obviously not a good article title: It isn't common (although it is used on all official correspondence, no one else uses it), it is not that recognizable, and most importanlty it is not concise. So, while we mention the formal title in the article, we use the informal name as the title of the article.

On the other hand... the LDS vs. Mormon example discussed above illustrates that sometimes we have opted to go the other way... to use the formal over the informal.

In other words... we can list examples that "prove" both sides of the coin here. This is because we reach different consensuses on different articles. There is nothing wrong with this. Consensus is how Misplaced Pages works. The same is true for the broader issue of self-identification... If the consensus at an article is to use a self-identified name... great, no problem... but if the consensus is to not use that name... also great... and also no problem. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Equating a government that has been running for over twenty years to a group of ex patriots seems weak. The example works precisely because you have a recognized government, it has become the common name, but Misplaced Pages still ignores it. Exactly how long does a government has to run before Misplaced Pages chooses to acknowledge reality? If a majority of editors felt we should ignore the US government and again call it a British colony, would it be appropriate? Of course not, but does a country have to exist for over 200 years to finally be acknowledged as legitimate? Are we the judges between what is an appropriate form of government? IMHO, a policy removes these types of conflicts. It has the added benefit of acknowledging reality.

With the current policy in place, it would be too easy to see a group of editors say the title should be Mormon Church or even The Church of Latter-day Saints, another name often used. The entity rejects both (i.e. they have stated their preference is the full name), but it could still be argued and all that is needed on Misplaced Pages is a consensus, which is really a euphemism for majority rule. Too often the majority is not informed or is emotionial (a dictatorship is a bad thing therefore let's ignore them and hope they go away) and their conclusion is wrong. Th MoS should guide to assist in reaching proper conclusions.

No one is arguing for "official" names and your examples don't fit the old language. Official names can often be rather long, tedious things as you have demonstrated. However, the issue is preferred names. The Catholic Church, for example, prefers Catholic Church rather than Roman Catholic Church. Both names could easily be used for the title, but there is a preference that, IMHO, should be acknowledged by MoS.

The tyranny of the majority, or consensus, is not the answer. That is why a MoS is important. It removes the opportunity for tyranny to exist. It supports the right of an entity to name itself. --Rider 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two ideological positions here:

• There is the statist position; SLORC is Burma; Henry VIII was England (as he called himself); and so on. L'État, c'est nous. Those who hold this position are indeed consistent to hold that the publicity of a government is always binding on its subjects - and on everybody else. I will admit that I find a certain novelty in presenting this as a stand against tyranny.
• On the other side, there is a populist position, however unAmerican it may be, that governments are established by the people to accomplish certain ends, and when they become destructive of those ends, the people have the right to alter or abolish them. The long-haired and slovenly sorts who hold this view will inquire what the Burmese people call themselves.

Misplaced Pages, however, takes neither position - both are points of view, and we cannot, and should not attempt to, decide the issue between them; instead, we let both sides stand undisturbed, and enquire what our readers will understand. On this issue, unlike many naming disputes, we have the judgment of the BBC, a neutral and usually reliable source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the BBC is a very good source for many things, but it is certainly not neutral (is anyone?). The BBC style guide does not directly emphasise this issue, but they hint on Page 55 at the use of self-identification. In my experience this is certainly the practice. If we use the BBC as the source we will always get self-identification names. Thehalfone (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew the RCC vs CC issue would come up sooner or later... Storm Rider's statement is not quite right... the Church uses "Roman Catholic Church" as a formal self-identifying name quite commonly (examples: here, here, and here... just to point to a random three.) So both names are "official" and both names are fairly commonly used. However, there is a good argument that "Catholic Church" is more commonly used (by both Church sources and non-Church sources), and therefore is the better choice. But again, that is a matter for consensus at the article level, and not something policy should dictate. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, it is best not to misrepresent the months long discussion about why Catholic Church is the preferred term. The CC does use Roman Catholic Church, but most often in ecumenical situations. In almost all other situations she calls herself Catholic Church. --Rider 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not call the websites I linked to "eccuminical situations", but that is besides the point. My intent was not to reargue that debate. I was simply making two points: 1) The RCC vs. CC debate is not really useful for this discussion because the Church uses both names in the context of being a formal self-identifing name. This means that we are not choosing between a self-identifying name and a name used by others... we are choosing between two common names, both of which are used by the subject entity to self-identify, and both of which are used by others. 2) There are often a hoast of subject specific factors that influence how we name specific article. We don't need to spell them all out on this page... because we already say that the determining criteria is consensus on the article talk pages. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that no past agreement is perpetually binding. My beef is an attempt at unilateral CHANGE of that agreement by a small number of editors without achieving the broad community consensus (or discussion) required. Now that we are down to discussing the actual issue. I can present several examples of the consistent and stable use of self-identification by Misplaced Pages editors in article naming. This longstanding and stable usage of self-identification must remain reflected on this policy page:

• Policy guidance. The Misplaced Pages [Manual of Style, one of WPs most used and authoritative guides, has long stated with regard to self-identification:

When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Misplaced Pages should use them too.

• This position was strongly presented on the old Misplaced Pages Naming Conflict page, stable from 2005 to 2009.
• Naming conventions such as Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sports) specify the use of self-identifying official names.

Some article titles in which self-identifying names have been used by editors.

• In the case of Republic of China the self-identifying name is used against the great weight of common usage, which would specify 'Taiwan'
• People's Republic of China is used rather than 'China', or Mainland China.
• Guangzhou vs Canton
• Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria vs Coptic Church
• Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church vs Ethiopian Coptic Church or Ethiopian Orthodox Church
• Kolkata vs Calcutta
• Canadian Forces Maritime Command vs Canadian Navy
• Ho Chi Minh City v Saigon
• Inuit vs Eskimo
• Romany vs Gypsy
• Religious Society of Friends vs Quakers
• SyFy vs Sci-Fi Channel
• Willis Tower v Sears Tower
• Russian Ground Forces vs Russian Army
• Indigenous Australians vs Aborigines
• Dalits vs Untouchables
• Indigenous peoples of the Americas vs Red Indians or American Indians
• Native Americans in the United States vs American Indians
• First Nations vs Canadian Indians
• In addition there are the cases where agreements have been reached over ares such as South Tyrol, Switzerland, Belgium and elsewhere to use the self-identifying names of the relevant communities.
• In the case of the Derry - Londonderry dispute, the solution has been to use the self-identifying name of the city (as voted by the elected city council) over the Official name, as stated in law. The County, however, is listed under Londonderry.

In addition, self-identification was used as a principle in settling the Macedonia controversy. Xandar 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The first one I checked, Inuit vs Eskimo, had articles at both titles, because they are not the same thing. The second one I checked, Romany vs Gypsy, has a disambiguation page at the former title, and articles on both Romani people and Gypsy, because they are not the same thing. The third one I checked, Indigenous Australians versus Aborigines, had a disambiguation page at the latter title, and articles at both Indigenous Australians and Australian Aborigines, because they are not the same thing. A long list of bullshit proves nothing except that someone is full of bullshit and is inclined to make lists out of it. Hesperian 04:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why, Hesperian you are incapable of discussing things in a rational manner, without breaching WP:CIVIL filling your posts with obsenities and abuse. If you think this is the way that policies should be discussed on Misplaced Pages. You need to leave. Your three so-called are largely diversions to article forks. The main articles are on the pages stated. And what about all the other examples? Just ignoring them, eh? Xandar 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Try telling a Torres Strait Islander that Indigenous Australian equals Australian Aborigine.

As I said above, "no-one has given a single example where there is consensus to use a self-identifying name because it is self-identifying, instead of the name that would have been chosen under the present wording." Tell me, is even one of the above examples a case where there was a choice between two names for the same article, and the one that was chosen was chosen because it is a self-identifying name, even though the present guidance indicated the other name was better? I'm asking because the first three I looked at were blatantly bogus, and I don't see why I should have to trawl through a long list of bullshit in order to make your case for you. If one of your examples meets that criterion, please advise, and I'll have a look at it. Hesperian 05:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• The largest piece of bushlit here is the attempt to drag in the Macedonia controversy. It is true that both sides claimed to be exercising self-identification - this is why there were tearful cries (not dissimilar to some of this page) that we must use FYROM or harm millions of inhabitants of Greek Macedonia; but it was not settled that way: FYROM is deprecated, and ArbCom expressly disavowed self-identification: Misplaced Pages does not take any position on whether a particular person, group or nation has the right to use a particular name, particularly the name it uses for itself (a self-identifying name). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Xandar. So you believe that if WP:NC were a strictly enforced 'law' (which it's not, but pretend for a minute) that this change would require all of these articles to be renamed?

Well, no, you can't, because you've named a couple of things that are different subjects and therefore have different articles at the different names (e.g., Eskimo and Inuit; people in a place and their current government). But perhaps excluding those errors, you think that this change is so substantial that it would require at least some of these articles to be renamed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I believe that Misplaced Pages policy pages are intended to codify what actually happens on Misplaced Pages, and what editors actually do. Otherwise they become irrelevant and misleading. The question of whether changes to the policy pages can force articles to adopt different names to those their editors have agreed is a different one. I believe some people want policy pages to reflect their idea of what policy should be, and even to impose that on editors. Republic of China certainly does not fit in with the changes some people seem to want. So if the wording was successfully changed, other editors eventually would insist that article names conform. However, as I have said, that is not the principal point - which is that the page neeeds to correctly represent what editors actually DO (and often for very good reason), rather than what some editors WANT them to do. Xandar 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed what this page should do, and does do. However, Xandar would have this page claim something which Misplaced Pages does not do, and of which he has provided no examples whatever:

• That editors have taken an article on a subject which has a common name in English,
• have rejected the common name, and agreed to use a different, self-identifying, name
• because it is the self-identifying name.

It is not difficult to find pages where common names have been rejected for consistency, or precision, or the other principles mentioned here. It is also not difficult to find pages (East Timor, Kiev), where a different name has been proposed as the self-identifying name, and the self-identifying name has been rejected because it's not common; but we're still waiting for X to mark his spot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As to determining "what acutally happens on Misplaced Pages and what editors actually do"... The examples are meaningless... The fact is, while some articles have used self-identification as a determining factor in reaching a consensus, other have articles have rejected self-identification as a determining factor. So we can not say that either is "what actually happens". Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

PMA misrepresents my position (as usual). I am not specifying a particular rigid wording, I am wanting to keep a form of wording that acknowledges that editors do in circumstances use self-identification as a legitimate factor in making naming decisions. (Fact). The new wording he proposes appears to rule that out, and thus would be a significant and unwarranted policy change. The same argument applies to Blueboar. Some editors have used self-identification, others have rejected it. In the majority of cases the self-identifying name of an entity - or some form of it - is the same as, or not significantly different from, the common name. It is on other occasions where the policy needs to continue to state that self-identification is used in some circumstance (not just when there is no English language mention of the topic). The policy and guidance have said this for the past five years with no perceivable problems raised, and there is no reason to alter this. Xandar 00:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is, like almost everything else Xandar has said on the subject, a direct and deliberate lie.

• There are some instances in which the self-appointed tribunes of national and ideological causes have appealled to "self-identification". In almost all cases, they have met with the tribunes of the opposite faction, and cancelled each other, while the rest of us have determined what English actually uses.
• In some cases, such as Kiev, there has been no opposite faction, and their contentions have been rejected anyway, as contrary to English usage.
• In one case, Xandar himself - a single-purpose account - succeeded in getting an incompetent mediator to change one article name to express a point of view, despite an immediate protest from other members of the mediation. Ever since then, he has been attempting to distort guideline and policy to retroactively support this fraud.
• In no case has "self-identification", which is an essentially point-of-view idea, been upheld by consensus against any of the other considerations which go into our naming conventions.

In short, the only controversy here is whether one or two single purpose accounts have been disruptive enough to be banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Xandar, you've missed the point of my question, which is a roundabout way of saying "Is there really, truly, definitely any practical difference between these two statements?" That is, if we tell editors to draw a line that's about four inches long today, and we tell them to make it about ten centimeters long tomorrow, then they're going to do the same thing. If we tell them to consider X, Y, and Z, and also tell them that Z typically exists only in unusual circumstances, today -- and tomorrow we tell them to consider X, Y, and Z, and don't bother mentioning the most common reason for needing to consider Z, then are we really telling them "different" rules on the two days?

That's why I asked for examples: if yesterday's rule is different from today's rule -- really, importantly different in its direct effect on the end result -- then you should be able to name an example that any reasonable editor would say "Under yesterday's rule, we correctly named this ____, but under today's rule, this other name would be a far better choice".

For example: WP:MEDRS says to use technical names under certain circumstances (primarily to provide necessary precision). It requires myocardial infarction, and I know what sentence would need to be changed (and how) to get that page moved to its redirect, heart attack. But I'm not seeing any such problem between, say, the Friends and the Quakers with the recent change. The recent change would not result in a page move for that example, even if the recent change were implemented with all the force of an unquestionable law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a great question, User:What. If there is no difference, why make the change? It might be appropriate to ask those who unilaterally changed the text to explain why. If they can't explain the benefit, it should go back to the original language. I prefer the language that had been used for years because with it I know it prevents editors with an axe from gaining their way. I also think it provides clearer guidance to prevent the waywardness we see see at times with the ignorance of the majority. So, please explain what the change achieves that the old language did not. --Rider 23:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's no difference in the results, then my first question is why should anyone be upset about which words are used? Think of this as my own version of "No Big Deal": these changes may or may not be helpful to editors, but if they don't actually change the names of real, live articles, then this is a little, unimportant, everyday, routine dispute -- probably worth the discussion, but not worth any stress or emotional involvement.

Not having a practical effect on the names editors choose doesn't mean that the change automatically isn't valuable. Many changes to guidelines like this one don't actually change the practical outcomes. Much of what I've written over the last couple of years at WP:External links, for example, is focused on reducing confusion by more fully explaining what's already on the page, rather than changing how the 'rules' operate. Spam's spam, IMO, and nothing I do at WP:EL can change that, but clearly expressed spam-identification rules are more efficient for editors (=better for the encyclopedia) than confusing ones, even if editors could, and did, eventually puzzle out what the confusing wording meant is the same.

The bottom line: If this changes outcomes, we need to be more careful. If this doesn't change outcomes, then we should still be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, etc., but the level of upset can be safely dialed back down to something approaching zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

hope for resolution

Yes, and as I have said all along, there is nothing wrong with editors discussing self-identification as one of many considerations they might consider in naming an article... However... it comes into the picture at a later part of the process than you have been advocating. To explain... here is how I see the naming process working:

1. Examine the sources and see if there is an obvious common name for the topic, one that is used commonly by a significant majority of reliable sources. If there is... we should use that name. If not...
2. Determine whether the topic is something that should have a) a descriptive name or b) a proper name. If a descriptive name is called for, we may either choose a name that someone else has invented, or invent our own name... keeping in mind that the resulting name must be neutral, easy to find, precise, and concise... also take into account any project consistancy preferences. If, on the other hand, a proper name is called for....
3. Re-examine the sources to see what names are used... reject any names that are rarely used. From the rest, reach a consensus of editors as to what name is best. Various factors should be considered in reaching this consensus... including (but not limited to): neutrality, self-identification, the need for disambiguation, etc.

You will note that in this outline of how the article naming process works, the discussion of self-identification is only discussed when there is no obvious common name. It is also not the only consideration being considered in reaching this consensus. It might be the determining factor... but then again it might not be; some other consideration might be the determining factor. Blueboar (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur; can you come up with wording which says no more than this and yet cannot be abused when quoted in isolation, as it will be? if these nuisances were banned, there would be someone else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more like

1. Examine the sources to see how the topic is usually referred to (there is no point getting hung up on whether "Canadian navy" is a name or a commonly used descriptive term; it is how the topic is referred to, regardless)
2. If nothing stands out, concoct a concise, neutral descriptive title;
3. If one stands out, use it;
4. If multiple candidates stand out, consider principles such as accessibility, precision, consistency, neutrality; and reach consensus.

The issue here is whether our principles include "self-identification". They do not. Hesperian 05:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we are essentially saying the same thing, except that I am taking the process one step further than you are (by outlining some of the things that should be considered when reaching a consensus). I do think self-identification is a valid issue for editors to discuss when we are evaluating the pros and cons of multiple candidates and reaching a consensus as to which one would be best... I would agree that it is not a "Principle" rather it is a "consideration". Considerations are things that should be thought about, but can either be accepted or rejected according to consensus. This accords with practice... accounting for the fact that some articles have chosen a self-identifying name over another name, while others have not.

Perhaps what this all comes down to is the question: Do we need to spell this out some of the factors that can be considered when reaching a consensus over naming, or is simply saying: "reach a consensus" enough? Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian is wishing to exclude self-identification as a legitimate concern when editors are coming to consensus. In this, he is trying to proscribe what editors should do, rather than reflecting what they actually (and often for good reason) do. That is not what this page should be doing. Self-identification has been an accepted factor in naming guidance since at least 2005, and there is no good reason to remove it or censor reference to it. If such wording is removed, people will soon start saying that it is an illegitimate factor, and this will create a lot of problems. I therefore think that Blueboar's proposal above, presents a good starting point for wording that is helpful and covers the situation on the ground. Xandar 01:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification has been an accepted factor in naming guidance. No, it hasn't. It was mentioned on a genuinely obscure page, which went unedited and largely ignored for years. Some dozen efforts were made to cite it, all of which were rejected.

While it continues to be pushed only by a handful of doctrinaire extremists, it should be ignored on this page; if it ever becomes widely influential in naming discussions, we can reconsider.

Leaving well enough alone will produce no problems and no changes, unless Xandar and StormrRider choose to make some - and we have other forums to deal with disruptive trouble-makers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

While it's easy to imagine situations where it should not be a controlling consideration, self-identification does seem to be a simple, common-sense factor to consider when naming articles. If nothing else, it should be one factor we consider when deciding whether an article's name is truly neutral - it's not uncommon for "common" names to have been originally assigned by outsiders hostile to a group or organization. Beyond that, in many situations dealing with religion, politics and philosophy, it's important to avoid confusing closely related groups that "common" names don't distinguish between (examples would be the different "Eastern Orthodox" denominations or the different "Mormon" groups within the Latter Day Saints movement, or atheism vs. nontheism vs. antitheism). While we need to make it easy for readers unfamiliar with a topic to find the relevant articles, sometimes it takes a touch of formality to handle a topic in a truly precise and encyclopedic fashion. EastTN (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "it's important to avoid confusing closely related groups": yes, which is why "precision" is one of our principles. This has nothing to do with self-identification. Hesperian 05:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification isn't always associated with precision, but it many cases dealing with religion, politics and philosophy, it is. The various groups that the average person would lump together as "Mormon" are very careful to distinguish between each other as they identify themselves. The same goes for the different flavors of Eastern Orthodoxy, political parties, and philosophical movements. Again, self-identification isn't the only factor we should consider, but it is a legitimate one and in many cases can help achieve precision in distinguishing between closely related groups. EastTN (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

An example where self-identification just happens to agree with current guidance (such as where it is clear that more precision is necessary in order to distinguish between religious denominations) is not an argument to change the current guidance. The only way to demonstrate that the current guidance needs to be changed is to show that there are cases where our current guidance recommends one name, the principle of self-identification recommends another, AND there is consensus that the latter name is preferable.

To put it another way, you haven't shown that the current guidance needs to be changed until you've shown an example of the current guidance getting it wrong. Show me such an example, and we'll talk. Hesperian 15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification is a common-sense factor to consider; as a practical matter, I'd be quite surprised if many editors aren't already considering it (I certainly do). A group's own name for itself should be considered as one of the terms a knowledgeable reader might be searching for, and as part of the process of making sure the name is neutral. Beyond that, many articles do use the terms groups use to identify themselves (e.g., Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Church of Christ, Scientist, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, Orthodox Church in America, Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, Christ's Sanctified Holy Church, True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Redeemed Christian Church of God, Church of Jesus Christ, the Bride, the Lamb's Wife, Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, United Holy Church of America, True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days).

You seem to be establishing a very high hurdle here. It would help me if you could explain the potential problems that might be caused if the guidance recognized the self-identification of a group as one of the considerations in selecting an article name. I don't understand why you think it would be harmful, and why you seem so confident that editors don't already consider it. EastTN (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That high hurdle is called Occam's razor.

As I've said numerous times already, the only cases of any relevance here are cases where current guidance and self-identification would lead to different article titles. As I've said numerous times already, show me a single one of those cases where the self-identification title would be better than the current guidance title. Now you're saying "no, you show me cases where it would be worse." Sorry, but I'm not buying that: if you want to change the convention, you have to state your case. Hesperian 01:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I purely don't understand the relevance of Occam's razor here. We're not talking about two alternative explanations for the same phenomenon. We're discussing what factors are valid to consider when naming an article.

The name a group uses for itself is a common-sense factor to consider, and at least some editors are already using it (beyond those of us who claim to consider self-identification as a factor, it beggars the imagination that editors would have chosen to call a particular group the United Holy Church of America or the Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if those had not, in fact, been the names the groups had already chosen for itself). You seem to be arguing that the current text accurately and completely reflects current practice - in other words, that editors are in fact not ever considering self-identification when naming articles. That doesn't make sense - there are far too many articles names that match or closely resemble the self-identification of the group for that assertion to be true.EastTN (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because in many cases the self-chosen names already meet our criteria (they're reasonably recognizable, precise, neutral in most cases - except in those rare cases where some other group disputes the first one's right to use the name). It doesn't mean that self-identification is a separate criterion from those.--Kotniski (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And when "the self-chosen names already meet our criteria" we are in practice considering them - we are not creating new names de novo in that case. The name a group selects for itself is one of the things editors are looking at. Sometimes it makes sense to use them; in other cases it does not. But to point to an extreme example again, Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not something that Misplaced Pages editors came up with on their own based on only the criteria of "reasonably recognizable, precise, neutral" - you can't get there unless you recognize it as the name chosen by the group itself.EastTN (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can agree with your interpretation. Independent high-quality reliable sources refer to this religious group as "Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The Misplaced Pages editors didn't "come up with it on their own", but they also didn't pick it 'because it's the self-identified term. The editors picked this name for the same reason that they normally pick any name: namely, it's what the best sources use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a presupposition that "best sources" may ignore self-identification preferences and that because "they" say so, we should respect "best sources" because obviously they know better than the entity themselves. Does that make any sense? If you name is Peter and I am an "best source" and I call you Pierre, we should ignore you preference and call you Pierre? Or if I am a great source who is also a critic and I call you Crazy Joe from Illinois we should respect the best source?

The problem is that you are elevating sources over the entity themselves. Who actually knows best? The entity or a third party? This is beginning to sound like insanity to me. What am I missing? --Rider 00:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're apparently missing the fundamental principle that Misplaced Pages cares about "verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". If reliable sources call me Crazy Joe from Illinois, then Misplaced Pages will call me Crazy Joe from Illinois. Along those lines, you might notice that Joe the Plumber is the page name, not Joe Wurzelbacher, which is the name he seems to use in everyday life. In this and many other cases, we follow the sources, even if what the sources use isn't the primary or legal self-identification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who is supporting the recent unilateral change. And no one but you three or four, lock-step, editors support it. None of you, as in Zero, nada, zip have offered any reason why the change was made except, "I don't like it". You wanted the changed, just explain yourself. I don't know why it is so hard. I don't even need an example (I have no idea why that is valid), I just want to understand why make a change to something that has existed for several years. --Rider 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean the change from "When there is no common English name..." to "When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English to have a common English name..."? No wait, you don't actually know what we're discussing, do you? You just come when Xandar calls. Hesperian 01:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The hurdle is actually quite low, IMO, and exactly the standard used for every policy or guideline: We provide the guidance that's actually needed, and we don't provide guidance that isn't actually needed. If our guidance is actually interfering with editors who want to do the Right Thing™, then we need to fix our guidance. If it's merely incomplete in a way that doesn't cause real problems with real disputes at real articles, then we don't care. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Which argument might stand up a little, if the group you support hadn't just changed the guidance unilaterally to fit your views. If there is no need for change, put it back the way it was before PMA invented a new policy. There is no doubt that the guidance has always recognised the usefulness and legitimacy of using self-identification as a factor in naming. It is your group that wants to change this, not us. YOU must find the justification. Xandar 02:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, EastTN. There are often very good reasons for the use of self-identifying names to be a factor in naming decisions by editors. And Misplaced Pages's re-direct system does not make the use of even relatively little known names like First Nations for Canadian Indians a problem. As far as Pmandersons points are concerned, "leaving well enough alone" is to leave the original agreed wording on self-identification intact, not his recent unagreed alteration, currently sitting on the page. In actual fact, I think the original merged wording could be improved, if we can gain agreement. I will propose an alternative wording shortly. Xandar 01:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

" There is no doubt that the guidance has always recognised the usefulness and legitimacy of using self-identification as a factor in naming" - well no, not really.

The main document for naming was this page, created in 2001 , with no mention of preferring official/self-identifying names (and in fact, pointedly preferring common names to "full" names for people). By 2005 we've got something comparable wnough to what we have now - and there's still no mention of self-idnetification or preference for official names. 1000 edits in in 2008, we still have no mention - even though we do have a mention of the "naming conflict" guideline.

The naming conflict page is the origin of this chestnut: started in 2005 "for ChrisO", the first mention of self-identification is when ChrisO adds it in this edit when he drafts a proposal - another editor points out this is not yet polcy . Another adds a POV template , but this is removed , by ChrisO. Radiant! removes the proposed tag here, but this doesn't appear to be the result of any community discussion on the talk-page. Gurch adds the guideline template in 2007 and this remains unchallenged, and the text is harmonised a year later and the status persists until the page's redirection. Kotniski rephrases the guidance in April 2009 and is reverted by Xandar in May . Thus we arrive here.

So self-identification was always a consideration? Certainly not in WP:NC, only much later in ChrisO's WP:Naming conflict page and only as the result of very little community discussion. Compare this to the inclusion of the much longer-standing principles of recognisable and unambiguous naming - these have been truly universal, right from the start, on a page regularly used in page renaming discussions.

For background and completeness' sake, Knepflerle (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

The following is a proposed new wording for the section in dispute, based largely on Blueboar's suggested resolution, and which would reflect actual Misplaced Pages practice. This is not MY wording but an attempt to find a wording around which a compromise solution can be based:

When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable sources in English, Misplaced Pages editors should first determine whether the topic should have a descriptive name, (for example one that covers an event, a controversy or an area of knowledge); or a proper name, (for example the name of a person, a country or an organisation).

• Descriptive names. Where there is no clear common name, Misplaced Pages editors may devise a name of their own or choose an appropriate name that someone else has devised. In each case the name chosen should be neutral, easy to find, precise, and concise. If an individual Wikiproject has a particular style or format preference for such articles, this is usually followed.

• Proper names should always be based on reliable sources, rejecting names that are rarely used. Editors should then reach a consensus on which of the remaining names is to be used as the article title. Factors that should be considered in reaching this consensus, include, (but are not limited to): neutrality self-identification, the avoidance of ambiguity, precision, and the official name of the entity as it appears in a constitution or other legal context. Xandar 04:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. (1) because it once again promotes "common name" above all other principles; (2) because it elevates self-identification and officialness as principles, when there is no evidence that they are so; and (3) because it over-emphasises the mostly spurious distinction between proper name titles and descriptive titles.

With respect to the last of these, it makes no difference whether or not "Canadian navy" is a name or a description; so long as it is the best title according to our principles, we use it. It has previously been proposed here that we should never choose a descriptive title if a name is available. That is wrong. If a name is available but reliable sources consistently ignore it in favour of a particular descriptive phrase, then that descriptive phrase is what we should be using. You might argue that such a phrase thereby becomes a name, which only supports my assertion that the distinction is mostly spurious. Hesperian 04:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification is not here elevated as a top of the article "principle" (though I might prefer it to be so), but as a consideration to be used by editors. And in the vast majority of cases there is a significant difference of order between a descriptive name like Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova and proper names like Moldova. Do we need a specific rule for where overlap occurs - as in Canadian navy? Xandar 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this policy endorsing self-POV in naming.

The "significant order of difference" is essentially the fact that reliable sources would almost universally refer to Moldova by the term "Moldova", so it is easily identified as the most common name for the topic; whereas reliable sources would use a range of terms and phrases to refer to the controversy of linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova, and it probably is not possible to identify a particular term or phrase as predominant. It is this that leads us to construct our own title in the latter case. Thus the "significant order of difference" is already captured adequately by our principle of following usage in reliable sources. To draw a class distinction between names and descriptions is unnecessary and only causes confusion and harm. Hesperian 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• The "section in dispute" means the last sentence of the WP:NC#Common names section, right? I don't see a need to replace that one sentence with all this lengthly text - it just adds words to the policy, without saying anything we don't already say (in that one sentence or elsewhere). I'm not saying the policy as it stands couldn't be more clearly written, but I don't think that just lengthening it like this is going to improve it.--Kotniski (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The "one sentence" you speak of originally said "When there is no common English name..." (use the name the entity calls itself), which PMA recently changed to "When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English to have a common English name...(use the name the entity calls itself)". I am quite happy to remain with the original agreed version. However people said that that was too vague, and needed clarification. This is an attempt at introducing that clarification along the lines suggested by Blueboar in order to find a solution. However the default wording if this is not accepted is not PMAs, but the original wording agreed at the page merger. Xandar 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Very Week Support... I think we are actually narrowing in on something I could live with, but it would need additonal tweeking. My major criticism is that I would tone down the "shoulds" (and, yes, I am aware that I used that word myself). "Things to consider" are not really a "should do" topic... they work more as "might" or "can". I would also make it clear that, while self-identification might be something to discuss when reaching a consensus, discussing self-identification does not guarentee that the end result will be to use the self-identifying name. In some articles, the consensus may be to use the self-identifying name... but in others the consensus will be to not use it. Both outcomes are fine, because they are based on consensus. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Choosing the self-identification name because it is most often used in reliable sources, is perfectly acceptable, and will happen very often indeed. Choosing the self-identification name solely because it is the self-identification name is endorsing the self-POV. You are comfortable having our naming convention policy endorse violations of our neutral point of view policy? Hesperian 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I am open to tweaking the wording, but it is absolutely beyond my comprehension why Misplaced Pages would deny an entity the right of self-identification. This is not about official names, this is not about difficulty of readers finding an article, it is about naming an article by "a" preferred name of an entity. I still do not understand why it is not a priority for naming an article. No a single editor has every provided any reasoning why it is best to ignore an entity's preference. Last of all, all of the recommendations in the world are meaningless when a temporary majority seeks to change a name; consensus can and does ignore all rules. Regardless of how much time we spend on writing this, it is worthless when a group seeks to ignore it. Consensus is the rule, not rules. Just look at Burma. --Rider 00:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't that we ignore an entity's preference... it's that we pay more attention to the reliable sources. Ultimately, WP:Common name is an application of WP:NPOV... we give things the same weight in Misplaced Pages that the reliable sources give them, and this applies to names no less than facts. When a self-identified name is "ignored" by the sources, it would be a WP:UNDUE issue for us to do the opposite. The reason why we use Burma and not the official name of Union of Myanmar is because a significant majority of sources use Burma and don't use Myanmar. It really is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it most certainly is that we ignore an entity's preference. It is called having a neutral point of view. The alternative—to take into account an entity's preference—is to give more weight to a particular point of view than all other points of view. That is an unacceptable violation of our neutral point of view policy, which is a pillar of this encyclopedia. We follow usage in reliable sources, and if an entity doesn't like what it is called in reliable sources, that is tough shit for them. Hesperian 05:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are confused about the definition of POV and how it applies. There is no POV to you calling yourself Hersperian. That is the name you use. It would actually be POV not to call you by your chosen name. That is a red herring and I hope to God you know it. If not, I kindly implore you to never vote on anything that has to do with NPOV on Misplaced Pages. --Rider 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If I call myself "Hersperian" and every reliable source calls me "Bob", then "My name is Hersperian" is my POV. If you don't get that, then I implore you to never vote on anything that has to do with NPOV on Misplaced Pages. Hesperian 07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• "This is not about official names" - the text you have just supported suggests considering "the official name of the entity as it appears in a constitution or other legal context"
• "this is not about difficulty of readers finding an article" - if not, it really, really ought to be. I write articles for people who can find them.
• "I still do not understand why it is not a priority for naming an article." -the question is rather whether it should be given priority over our readers' ability to find the article. Knepflerle (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem finding articles on Misplaced Pages. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon Church, and LDS Church all link to the same article. This is also a red herring. --Rider 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The simplest and best way of ensuring unambiguous recognisable titles is to ask editors to use unambiguous recognisable titles, and not through promoting self-identification and hoping that someone takes the time to mop up any ambiguities or little-used titles that may arise using redirects, hatnotes and disambiguation pages. Knepflerle (talk)

• Support - though this was not posted in order to have a vote, but in order to reach a consensus on appropriate wording that represents what editors do. So hopefully editors will be constructive, and try to make this work. Perhaps Blueboar and those with problems would propose specific wordings he might prefer. Xandar 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with Kotniski's summary, and further find that this wording obscures the primary considerations of recognisability and unambiguity in the push to promote self-identification and "official" names (and "official"ness is a slippery concept, guaranteeing neither a neutral nor a single, unique name - never mind one which is recognisable and unambiguous). Our articles should be as easy as possible to find and to link to, whilst having an unambiguous title. In the cases presented above where the common name is not used, it is because the most common name is ambiguous or imprecise; this is what our guidelines already tell us to do. The over-emphasis on a descriptive/proper name divide is also artificial and unilluminating, as Hesperian also points out. Knepflerle (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no attempt to "promote" self-identification. Self-identification has long been, and remains a Misplaced Pages naming consideration. What we are trying to attempt here is to maintain this convention as one that describes what Misplaced Pages editors actually DO, rather than writing a list of what certain people think editors OUGHT to do. So we are trying to find a synthesis that acknowledges that editors do use self-identifying names, and to set out the more detailed exposition of when and why this happens that has been demanded. The issue of "descriptive" and "proper" names is a separate consideration, which has been added as per suggestion. The original wording simply said (paraphrased) "Where there is no common name, use the name by which the entity self-identifies or is officially known." Xandar 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"There is no attempt to "promote" self-identification. Self-identification has long been, and remains a Misplaced Pages naming consideration." - for far shorter time than the universal principles of recognisability and unambiguity: hence I cannot support any text which could possibly be construed as promoting an ambiguous or little-recognised title just because it happens to be the subject's self-identification. Knepflerle (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

arb break

I have no problem leaving it as is... but if it will help resolve the issue, I would propose something very simple...

• When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a concensus as to which name is best. Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus, include (but is by no means limited to): Neutrality, Self-identification, Precision, Ambiguity, etc. Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity is not a second-level consideration to be examined in the absence of a common name. An ambiguous title is not acceptable. Knepflerle (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Telling people it is okay to consider self-identification is telling people it is okay to endorse the entity's point of view over and above all others. This is not acceptable. Hesperian 05:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That is just plain balderdash. We are talking about what an entity calls itself. That is not POV; in fact, there is no POV. We are talking about reality as in facts. There is no one more qualified to know the name of an entity than the entity itself. Claiming this is POV issue is a red herring. POV has nothing to do with it at all. Because you call yourself Peter is POV? Please don't make me laugh. You call yourself Peter and thus we call you Peter; it is as simple as that. Either you are confused or you don't understand what a POV is. I reject completely that a "common" name is somehow of more value than the actual preferred name of an entity. --Rider 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil. It's been explained many times why this argument is fallacious; Misplaced Pages will obviously report the fact that A calls itself "X" (and that B calls A "Y"), but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages has to follow either A or B in its choice of name for A (and automatically following A rather than B would not be neutral between A and B).--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"You call yourself Peter and thus we call you Peter; it is as simple as that." Sounds good. In such a case my name is unambiguously Peter, we don't have a problem, and we certainly don't need self-identification in the policy to get this right. A problem arises, however, when I call myself Peter and every reliable source calls me Simon. In such a case, "my name is Peter" is my point of view, my POV. And our NPOV policy forbids us from endorsing that POV. Hesperian 07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. This is your personal belief. And your "example" is not a real world one. Misplaced Pages policy has, at least since 2005 strongly endorsed the use of self-identification as a naming criterion. This is a FACT. Misplaced Pages editors, and groups of editors endorse self-identification in their choice of article names. That is another fact. The purpose of this page is to reflect those facts. Your personal opinion on whether you like self-identification or not is irrelevant. The page does not exist for you to force others to adopt your viewpoint. And you are not free to unilaterally change the naming policy page to reflect your personal preference. So, either we agree a compromise wording such as that suggested by Blueboar, or we have to remove PManderson's unagreed change to the accepted wording, and return it to the wording as agreed at the page merger. Xandar 23:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly endorsed? It was put on to a proposal page with no community discussion, which was "upgraded" to a guideline by an undiscussed removal of a template, the phrasing was rejected when it was raised in WP:RM discussions and there was no mention of it on WP:NC at all until Kotniski added it in 2009. If that's a strong endorsement, how bad is a weak one? Knepflerle (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been asking you to provide evidence for your two "FACT"s for months now, and you won't. Instead you give lists of article pairs that have no bearing on this discussion and certainly don't do anything to establish your "FACT"s as facts. I haven't made it at all hard for you here: I asked for just one clear and uncontroversial example: an example where there is consensus to choose the self-identification name instead the name suggested by current guidance. There's nothing onerous about that. If you can't give a single example, you must accept that "Misplaced Pages editors endorse self-identification" is merely something you choose to belief, despite the absense of any evidence for it."

Let me make this clear:

1. I dispute your two assertions of "FACT".
2. If you could convince me of them, I would come entirely over to your side.
3. Restating your "FACT"s over and over and over and over and over and over again, without ever presenting evidence to back them up, is not going to convince me. On the contrary, it suggests to me that your argument has nothing to support it.

So kindly stop wasting everybody's time by repeatedly screaming "this is a fact". It fools no-one. Evidence, Xandar, Exidence. Hesperian 00:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian. It is QUITE clear that Misplaced Pages editors use self-identifying names for entities in articles. I gave a list of examples above. I also listed a wikipedia naming convention that specifically uses self-identifying names as standard, and pointed to Misplaced Pages article groups, such as those for South Tyrol and other similar areas, where the name chosen by the majority poulation is used. Self-identifying principles were used as a basis for the solution of the Macedonia dispute. Even further, self identification has been endorsed by the Misplaced Pages Naming-conflict guideline, which was recently merged into this page. Further still, self-identification is clearly indorsed by the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style. Continual denial of these clear facts does not make your version of reality true. Xandar 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Having demonstrated that a random sample of your "list of examples" was utter bullshit, I have repeatedly asked you to identify a single entry in that list that is not bullshit, so that I may examine it. How many times do I have to ask before I am entitled to presume the list is 100% bullshit? You other assertions have also been refuted. With respect to your Macedonia comment, I quote PMA above: "The largest piece of bushlit here is the attempt to drag in the Macedonia controversy. It is true that both sides claimed to be exercising self-identification - this is why there were tearful cries (not dissimilar to some of this page) that we must use FYROM or harm millions of inhabitants of Greek Macedonia; but it was not settled that way: FYROM is deprecated, and ArbCom expressly disavowed self-identification: 'Misplaced Pages does not take any position on whether a particular person, group or nation has the right to use a particular name, particularly the name it uses for itself (a self-identifying name)'. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)" How anyone can have the nerve to keep trotting out the same refuted garbage over and over again is beyond me. Hesperian 02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way. When PMA made his change, the consensus for the previous version became void. There is no consensus for the old way; there is no consensus for the new way. The fact that the old version came first does not give it priority: you may reject PMA's change, and PMA can reject your preferred version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What nonsense! PMA has no right to unilaterally alter the policy Page. He has no mandate to do this - or to change the wording agreed at the page merger, which REMAINS the policy until it is altered by a wide-broad-based community consensus. You, PMA, and a handful of page regulars DO NOT make up that consensus, and have no right to abrogate a policy that has held firm throughout the last half decade of Misplaced Pages. PMAs wording has no status whatsoever, no matter how much it may be improperly edit-warred onto the page. Xandar 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• sigh*

I have never said that PMA had any right to change the policy; I have never said that PMA's change to the text at WP:NC changes the actual policy; I have never said that there is a consensus for the change. Please read what I actually wrote, paying close attention to the specific words "there is no consensus". If you interpret my statement that "there is no consensus" as actually meaning there is no consensus, then you'll be much closer to understanding what I said, and perhaps a little less needlessly upset. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said there was consensus for the new way? Just because it was changed does not mean there was consensus. It only means it was changed. I continue to reject that an entity stating what it should be called, i.e. choosing its own name, is POV. That is beyond absurd and no one has explained how it is POV. Even worse, the bizarre example of your name being Peter and others call you Simon; therefore you don't know your own name and must be called Simon brings back too many memories of 1984. Since when does any elite group get to demand what others be called? Only on Misplaced Pages does a majority of editors gain the god-like power to rename entities to suit a cabal's objectives. This gets more and more strange. Do you really read this stuff and believe it? This is becoming a very scary place. "No, you, the dark, can't call yourself that anymore, what arrogance to think you know your own name. From this day forth you will be called light because we say so." "Further, how dare you think you can share you POV by naming yourself, you impudent prig." --Rider 03:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I continue to reject that an entity stating what it should be called, i.e. choosing its own name, is POV. That is beyond absurd and no one has explained how it is POV.", I'm not sure how to "explain how it is POV" because as far as I am concerned there is no other way to parse the phrase "an entity stating what..." other than an entity stating its point of view. To say that that particular point of view should be privileged is one thing; to deny that it is a point of view at all is just bizarre.

As for the rest of the above, I'm afraid you've gotten yourself so worked up you've lost command of the English language. I mean, Jesus H. Christ!, equating "follow usage in reliable sources" with "Only on Misplaced Pages does a majority of editors gain the god-like power to rename entities to suit a cabal's objectives" is beyond irresponsible rhetoric: it is utterly irrational. Hesperian 05:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the bizarre example of your name being Peter and others call you Simon; therefore you don't know your own name and must be called Simon brings back too many memories of 1984.", oh, now I see your problem. You think a name is some mystical property of a thing, such that every thing has exactly one of them. No. If I call myself Peter, and everyone else calls me Simon, then I have two names, one for each of two points of view. Misplaced Pages policy is, in theory, to use the "neutral" point of view, which, in practice, means using the "reliable sources" point of view. Now do you see how this ties into WP:NPOV? Hesperian 05:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Simon v. Peter example might make a bit more sense if we flip it - Self-identification: Simon (or Simeon in hebrew)... Common name: Peter... Guess which name we use for the article on the Christian Saint? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian, I don't trust that references are always neutral. We all can find references for many topics that produce outlandish statements. I don't think names have a mystical value, but I do think they are important. In the event that a reference conflicts with an entity's preferred name, I feel the preference should be given to the entity. You might have two names, but how does a third party gain supremacy in telling you what your name should be? I place a great value on the right of the entity to name itself. I remain stunned that you and others feel it is preferable to ignore an entity and seek the preference of a third party. Do you think that third parties are consistently neutral? This is just too Orwellian for me.--Rider 14:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

StormRider, Misplaced Pages directly defines "neutral" as being whatever the reliable sources say. If our sources say that the sky is orange and the sun is green, then claims of blue and yellow would be dismissed as unDUE and non-neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Self-identification, indeed official titles, are often chosen specifically to push a point of view. To misquote Yes Minister "The Department of Employment is in charge of unemployment, the Ministry of Defence is for war, the Department of Industry presides over the demise of British industy...". The wording above sounds like self-identification is likely to be counted as a plus point, however, it may well be a negative point. Of course the examples in the quote are (close to) the common names for these departments so they do not come into the question. If the above departments were not commonly refered to (let's say we were talking about an obscure quango), then the main point in the self-identification would be the POV. Thehalfone (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly... This isn't about rejecting a self-identified name... it's about accepting the name that is commonly used by the sources. 99% of the time, what the entity calls itself will be identical to what the sources call it... but on those rare occasions when there is a conflict between what an entity calls itself and what the sources call it, on those rare occasions when we must determine which name should be given the most weight we should follow the sources. This concept is discussed by multiple policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is something quantifiably different from a name and a fact. We are not talking about determining the date of an event where expert references are needed. There is no one more expert about an entity's name than the entity itself. The only reason there would be a conflict is the POV of the reference.

Attempting to claim the Department of Defense is the Department of War is POV and shortsided. More importantly, it demonstrates the weakness of allowing third parties to define that the "real" name should be. Who is more expert in knowing the name of an entity? The entity itself of a third party? --Rider 15:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The entity probably knows best what name(s) it prefers for itself. Other parties know best what name(s) they prefer for the entity. One type of name is no more "real" than the other, and in the vast majority of cases there won't be any difference. If there is a difference, we have to decide what to do, and we (wishing to be as much like a reliable source as possible) serve readers best by following what reliable sources do. Why is this barely significant matter worth all this continuous discussion?--Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE: ... "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

I understand the phrase "... and all other material as well" to include the title of the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is irrelevant with regard to the name an entity calls itself. WIkipedia naming conventions and gidance has at least since 2005 CLEARLY stated that self-identification is a MAJOR element in naming decisions. If people want to change that, then we will have to go to a Community-wide debate and new-consensus on that issue. The comment is also not relevant to the propsed new wording anyway, since it states that Common names from reliable sources are preferable. Xandar 00:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"WP:UNDUE is irrelevant with regard to the name an entity calls itself." Says who?

I'm pretty sure we already had that "community-wide debate", when you posted a RFC on this page several months back. And you lost. Before you create a whole lot more needless drama, please explain how the RFC would be different to the previous RFC. Hesperian 02:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, While I don't think this is what he meant... Xander is correct in saying that "WP:UNDUE is irrelevant with regard to the name an entity calls itself" (Misplaced Pages's policies don't apply outside of Misplaced Pages after all)... However, WP:UNDUE is not irrelevant with regard to choosing a title for a Misplaced Pages article on the entity. Titles are article content, and article content rules apply no less to them than they do any other part of the article. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I posted an RFC, not on this matter, but on another doctrinaire and unagreed change supported by Hesperian, which was edit-warred onto this page - namely the removal of the sentence stating that individual naming conventions could set aside the "use common name" policy advice. That RFC proved that there was NO community-wide consensus for that change. And the wording was restored. This change, on self-identifying names was made to the wording of the page following the same pattern, and NO community consensus for such a significant policy change has been agreed. In fact, as was made clear, the wording altered by PMA was agreed on at the merger of this page with Misplaced Pages Naming Conflict in the autumn. So once again an attempt seems to be being made to sneak a significant policy change through without community consensus.
• On the principle of self-identification, it is clear from the policy that has existed from 2005 to now, that self-identification is not POV and not Undue weight. This was explained at length in the Naming conflict guideline. And as StormRider says, no one has produced one good reason, or a single example of a REAL situation where the use of self-identification as a naming criterion has produced any problem at all. It seems that the move by a few people here is based on an isdeological desire to enforce compliance with a doctrinaire rule. As was raised in the original argument on this issue six montha ago, and now reopened, self-identifying names are especially useful when the "common-name" is offensive or inaccurate - as in "Untouchables" or "Canadian Indians", when the "Name in reliable sources is out of date, and when the name is inaccurate, as per Canadian Navy, or Russian Army. However what we are attempting to do here is not rehash the issues but, if possible, agree a form of wording that will settle the dispute and set out what editors actually do - not try to set rigid rules decreeing what certain people want them to do. Xandar 04:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "No one has produced... or a single example of a REAL situation where the use of self-identification as a naming criterion has produced any problem at all." Oh, this is jolly funny. No-one can show where self-identification was used and it caused problems, because no-one can show where self-identification was used at all!

    "hat we are attempting to do here is... agree a form of wording that will settle the dispute and set out what editors actually do...." You keep on claiming that "what editors actually do" is agreed. It is not. No progress will be made here until you either drop the claim that editors take self-identification into consideration, or provide us with an example where a self-identification name was chosen instead of the name indicated by current guidance. If you won't provide an example, another million years of uttering the same shibboleths about "what editors actually do" won't make it true. Hesperian 05:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Okay, I've fallen for it again. Untouchable is quite rightly a disambiguation page. No-one can reasonably claim that a disambiguation page with so many entries would be an article if it weren't for self-identification principles. "First Nation/s" smashes "Canadian Indian/s" on Google Scholar by an order of magnitude. Clearly current guidance to follow reliable sources indicates First Nation is the right title; you don't need self-identification for that. Considering there are separate articles for the 1911–1968 Royal Canadian Navy and the 1968–present Canadian Forces Maritime Command, it would be ridiculously imprecise to name the latter article "Canadian navy". Precision—a principle under current guidance—requires us to provide titles that distinguish the two topics. Thus the title "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" emerges naturally from current guidance; there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that self-identification was used, or is needed, to arrive at this article title.

    Once again, I have checked three of your examples, and again demonstrated that they are all utterly spurious. All of these titles are correct under current guidance. Not one of them provides any evidence whatsoever for the claim that self-identification is used by editors. Why are you wasting my time? Hesperian 06:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You cherry picked three of my many examples - and you aren't even right there. Canadian Navy redirects to Canadian Forces Maritime Command, even though Canadian Navy is the common name for the Canadian military afloat. Royal Canadian Navy is not the common name, but a historic term. There is nothing about precision that mandates use of the self-identifying term, since there is only one body that can be called the Canadian Navy. Similarly with First Nations if you google scholar just the words "First Nations", you do end up with millions of hits. However this is counting all the uses of "first" and all the uses of "nations", across the world. for example... If you google scholar on the exact phrase "First nations", the number of hits goes down to 35,000 far fewer hits than emerge from reference to Canadian indians. With regard to "untouchable". This is a particularly bad example for you. Even on google scholar Untouchablesstill gets twice as many hits as "dalit". If we associate "india" with "untouchable", it still gets significantly more mentions. On this basis, under your rules the name of the article should be "Untouchables" - or (using disambiguation) "Untouchables (India)" or "Untouchables (people)". Dalit is a self-identifying term virtually unknown in the west, and is used not because it is "common" or easy to find, but because it is the name chosen by the people themselves. Xandar 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picked? I picked the first three you listed above. Maybe, instead of worrying about how much care I'm taken picking your examples, you might take a little more care picking your examples yourself, since they are consistently garbage. I still say that "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" was chosen over "Canadian navy" because the existence of Royal Canadian Navy made the latter title too imprecise.

"There is nothing about precision that mandates use of the self-identifying term." Jolly good; let's keep it that way.

I would never be so stupid as to search without quotes; would you? For "First Nation" and "First Nations", using quotes in both cases, I get 22000 and 35000 hits respectively. For "Canadian Indian" and "Canadian Indians", using quotes in both cases, I get 4000 and 3500 hits respectively. Your assertion is false. Mine is true.

As for untouchables, I made no claim about commonness; I said that "untouchables" is too ambiguous to serve as a title for any article. You're beating a straw man.

Still you have failed to provide a single example where there was consensus to choose the self-identification name instead of the name recommended by current guidance. Hesperian 03:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The content from untouchable was moved to Dalits purely for the purpose of disambiguation. See this comment, from the editor who did the move himself. Knepflerle (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

First Nations ended up at its current title after this discussion, based on the number of incoming wikilinks - the common use of editors. Niteowlneils' comment specifically mentions "per 'use the most common name' policy". No mention whatsoever is made of self-identification. This move took place two years into the article's existence, but still months before the creation of anything at Canadian Indians (a redirect to First Nations). Knepflerle (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian. "First nations" and variants, even without adding the limiting connector, "canada" may give 22,000 - 35,000 hits on google scholar. You claim the phrase "canadian indians" strictly linked gives far fewer. However use a simple variant like indians canada and you end up with half a million hits. The key concept here, rejected by the people of the First Nations themselves is "indians" not "Canada", nor the use of the possessive form of "Canada" (ie canadian), which is just a locator. In other words "indians" as a name for the non inuit native peoples of Canada is a far more common name than First Nations in the sources. And even with the benefit of strict linkage, "american indians" appears more commonly on google scholar than "native americans".

Knepferle. There are other ways of disambiguating "untouchable" other than moving it to "dalit". The simplest whilst keeping to your treasured dogma of "common name", would be Untouchable (India), or Untouchable (caste). Moving the page to Dalit was the legitimate use of self-identification to solve a problem in spite of that not being the common name. The user himself in your link above, states that he disapproves of "Dalit" being redirected to "untouchable" because that name is "highly unfelicitous". In other words it is objectionable, and so the self-identifying name was used. With First Nations the move discussed was not from Canadian Indians to first nations, but from First Nations of Canada to First Nations, again the principle of use of First Nations rather than the more common "indians was not being discussed. It was linking the name explicitly with Canada. In fact the page contains objections to use of the term "indians", even in the article text. Xandar 15:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Xander... you forgot to put "indians canada" in qoutes... so you are still getting a flawed search that includes every source that uses the word "canada" and the word "indians" even if the source has nothing to do with canadian indians. Try it correctly (with the qoutes) and you only get 429 google scholar hits. To put this flawed example to rest:

• "First Nations" (in quotes to avoid false positives) = 36,400 google scholar hits.
• "Canadian Indians" (also in qoutes to avoid false positives) = 3,650 google scholar hits.

In other words, "First Nations" is by far the most common name for that topic that is used in reliable English language sources. THAT is why we should (and do) entitle the article: First Nations. Self-Identification has nothing to do with it. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And it is likely that it is most common in part because it is accepted by the peoples concerned (and the Canadian Government); that indirect recognition of self-identification is one of the benefits of common names. However, when the self-identifying name is not English usage, we should not use it; we do not affirm such names ourselves, unless the enormous anglophone community has done so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Not at all. We don't put Canadian Indians in brackets when searching because this would eliminate use of "Indians of Canada", "Canada's Indians" and other variations, which lead to the false result above. The simple fact is that these peoples are described more commonly as Indians in relation to Canada, even in google scholar (which is not the sum of all reliable sources) than as "First Nations" in relation to Canada. However this is largely a red herring from the main issue.

I agree with PMA that self-identification is at the root of most common names. However I strongly disagree that we must or that Misplaced Pages always does use the most common name in English usage when there are problems, such as offensiveness, inaccuracy, or recent changes applicable to that name. However again this is a red herring since the issues we are talking about with this paragraph are WHEN THERE IS NO CLEAR COMMON NAME. So can we stick to what we are discussing please? Xandar 18:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Focussing on the issue

We seem to be getting distracted into side-arguments here, so I would once again like to focus on the issue in hand. The most recent proposal for a wording for the sentence in question that could form an acceptable compromise on the topic and replace the agreed merger wording, is the following by Blueboar:

When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a concensus as to which name is best. Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus, include (but is by no means limited to): Neutrality, Self-identification, Precision, Ambiguity, etc.

Can we focus on obtainiong an agreed wording please. Xandar 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the proposal is going to work:

Misplaced Pages essentially defines neutrality as "whatever a significant majority of reliable sources say", and neutrality is actually required, not merely something that "might be considered". If high-quality sources can't agree on a name (which isn't unusual in some articles, e.g., regions of geopolitical instability and newly described psychological phenomena

OK so take out "Neutrality" as an issue for discussion in reaching consensus. I was mearly trying to come up with examples of the various arguments that might figure into a discussion when there was no obvious common name. The point of my language is that there are any number of issues are appropriate to discuss on the talk page when no common name can be determined from the sources. Self-identification happens to be one of them. It isn't a "criteria", but it is a legitimate issue to discuss. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with taking "Neutrality" out. Perhaps what we really need to say is something along the lines of :

"Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus include (but are not limited to): the relatively frequency of the different names used by reliable sources, in the case of groups, organizations or political entities, the group, organization or political entities' name for itself, precision, the potential for ambiguity between similarly named topics, and the terms readers are most likely to use in searching for the topic. Relevant Misplaced Pages principles such as maintaining a Neutral point of view be adhered to."

That would distinguish between the background facts that may be considered and the guidelines that should be used in making a choice based on those facts.EastTN (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I presume the last line should end. "..should be adhered to." Xandar 11:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Thanks for the copy editing! EastTN (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it should probably be stronger; perhaps ". . . must be adhered to." would be better. EastTN (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Overly wordy... try:

• "Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus include (but are not limited to): the relative frequency of use in various sources, whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself, the potential for confusion, and the terms readers are most likely to use in searching for the topic. Relevant Misplaced Pages principles such as maintaining a Neutral point of view must be adhered to."

(I also reworded a bit to reflect the potential that the policy will be renamed) Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that; it is a good bit tighter. EastTN (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Text

Based on the discussion above, I think we may have some potential text. I'd like to propose the following:

When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which name is best. Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus include (but are not limited to): the relative frequency of use in various sources, whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself, the potential for confusion, and the terms readers are most likely to use in searching for the topic. Relevant Misplaced Pages principles such as maintaining a neutral point of view must be adhered to." EastTN (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No one seems to have any problems with this so far, and it seems to reflect actual practice. I could live with this as an acceptable wording. Xandar 22:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One very minor change...

"....reach a consensus as to which title is best. Issues that might ..."

Otherwise no objections.

I assume this would go at the end of WP:Common names? Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That change makes sense to me. And yes, I thought we were talking about a replacement for the text that's currently at the end of that section ("When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English to have a common English name, use the official name (as defined in a legal context, for example, such as a national constitution), or the name that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves."). Looking back at that now, do we need to add the clause "...the official name, as used in a legal context..."? That would give us something like:

When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best. Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus include (but are not limited to): the relative frequency of use in various sources, whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself, the official title used in legal contexts, the potential for confusion, and the terms readers are most likely to use in searching for the topic. Relevant Misplaced Pages principles such as maintaining a neutral point of view must be adhered to."

Given that the very next section is Foreign names and anglicization, I personally don't see any need for adding "(For foreign terms, see the next section.)" to end of this section.EastTN (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between "what an entity calls itself" and the "official title used in legal contexts"? Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference is approximately "Chief Justice of the United States" (official) and "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" (common).

I think this text would benefit from including a reference to English-language common names. The most common name for any everyday object is Mandarin (the most widely used language in the world). We don't want to rename Water to shuǐ -- even though more humans use "shuǐ" than "water" to refer to that substance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Um we already specify... "...as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources." or is that not clear enough? As for the Chief Justice example... that is an example of official vs. common. I am asking about something different. I would think that when we say you can consider "whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself" that would include discussing "the official title used in legal contexts"? No? Is there a reason to specify? Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold and added the text. We can continue to tweek and discuss if needed. Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool with it. EastTN (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself"

I have removed that clause once again. There is quite clearly no consensus for it, and it directly contradicts our neutral point of view policy, one of our five pillars, which expressly forbids us from promoting a particular point of view. Hesperian 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree... there does seem to be consensus for that clause. I think you may be over reacting... what an entity calls itself might be POV... then again, it might not be. That depends on the name. Please note that the passage is carefully worded to say that this is mearly something to consider when reaching a consensus... It does not say what the end result of the consensus deliberation must be. If the name the entity calls itself does overly promote a particular POV, that is a point that can be raised when considering whether a title should reflect what an entity calls itself. Also remember that the consideration of "whether" something should be done implies the possibility of the answer being "no it should not be done". I would definitely agree that if the name that the entity calls itself does promotes a POV, there is a very strong argument against using that name. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with a title ending up being what the entity calls itself; there is nothing POV about that. I have a problem with us taking into account what an entity calls itself when trying to decide upon a title. That is POV. Always. By definition. What an entity calls itself is never something to consider. The weaselly wording "whether a title should reflect what an entity calls itself" explicitly leaves open the possibility of choosing a POV name. That is unacceptable.

Where is the consensus? I've spoken out against this until I'm sick of saying it; as soon as I quit repeating myself, consensus for it suddenly appears? Last I checked, PMAnderson was against it; WhatamIdoing was against it; Kotniski was against it; Knepflerle was against it; The halfone was against it. That makes six of us. Who supports it? Hesperian 00:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Um... considering that I just devised this wording as a compromise a few days ago, I don't think you can say that Kotniski, PMA and WhatamI, etc were all against it. I completely agree that saying, "You must use X because that is the name X uses for itself" is POV and unacceptable ... but discussing the fact that X calls itself X in a consensus discussion is not POV.... it is mearly a discussion of data... no different than saying "According to google books, 20 sources call it X, and 19 sources call it Y", or "I think X is overly complex and imprecise... what about Y?". That is what all we are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that Kotniski, PMA and WhatamI, etc were all against it... but you can claim consensus for it?

"Discussing the fact that X calls itself X" is more weaselly language. Either "discussing the fact" constitutes making the argument "We should use the title X because that is what the entity uses for itself", which is plainly POV; or it is a pointless, aimless, irrelevant comment, and there is certainly no need for this convention to enumerate every pointless and irrelevant comment that might come up in a naming discussion.

Are you truly unable to see a POV difference between "We should call it X because most reliable sources call it X" and "We should call it X because that is what it calls itself"? Hesperian 02:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, some consensus, yes (until you objected several people had indicated approval)... but I am willing to say that the consensus isn't solid enough and that the idea needs more discussion.

I will note that POV does not apply to talk pages... we are allowed to express our POV on a talk page. In fact, consensus is nothing but reaching a joint POV. There is nothing wrong with someone saying "I think we should use title X because that title best reflects the name that the entitiy uses for itself". Saying so is not a policy violation. It is a perfectly valid talk page discussion point. If someone replies... "Yeah, but that name isn't neutral" that is also a valid discussion point... one that that carries significantly more weight (as WP:NPOV is manditory, while self-identification isn't). Blueboar (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this policy is not to advise people on what they can and can't say on talk pages. The purpose of this policy is to advise people on how to name articles. It follows, inevitably, that putting the disputed phrase into this policy is going to be interpreted as permission/encouragement to take "what an entity calls itself" into account when making a naming decision. That is unacceptable. We approach article naming from a neutral point of view. That is not negotiable. Hesperian 05:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with both sentences (even after Hesperian cut the self-identification phrase - a change for the better):

Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus include (but are not limited to): the relative frequency of use in various sources, the potential for confusion, and the terms readers are most likely to use in searching for the topic.

The consensus may (but does not have to) consider a list of issues, and may also consider other things. Does this add anything to silence? Yes, it provides quotes for the various dogmatic schools to fling at each other.

Relevant Misplaced Pages principles such as maintaining a neutral point of view must be adhered to.

NPOV is not a mere principle; but invoking it here authorizes all our various forms of political correctness. Edward the Confessor originally expressed a religious and political POV, but we use it anyway, because it's what English calls him. Please don't give ammunition to our nationalist Yahoos. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian (For example the American habit of giving military operations propaganda terms such as Operation Enduring Freedom) would cause problems, particularly with near current events when there are several common names swirling about.

PMAnderson in principle I agree with you, perhaps it should be made clear the NPOV refers to descriptive names, which would perhaps cut the Gordian knot, for selecting a name when there is no one obvious common name. However there are exceptions: See Liancourt Rocks, where the two more common names are generated by the vast output of the two nations involved clashing in every verbal forum possible. That is AFAICT the is the only WP:RM which caused a national newspaper to ask citizens to try to influence the RM survey, and where the Library of Congress was ordered by the President of the day not to follow were Misplaced Pages had lead. -- PBS (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

PMA's wording is certainly acceptable to me. The reason why I included the "name the entity calls itself" language is a) to try to compromise, and b) I can see situations where a self-name would properly figure into the consensus conversation ... Example: we are writing an article on a person named Charles Albert Doe... we look at the sources and find that they are evenly mixed between "Charles A. Doe" and "C. Albert Doe"... the fact that the subject himslef goes by "Albert Doe" is a perfectly acceptable thing to bring up on the talk page. It may or may not incline the consensus towards using "C. Albert Doe" as the title. Choosing either name is technically POV, but in this case there is nothing controvercial or contentious about the choice. I don't see how this would violate NPOV. However, I am not going to insist on the language. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What I want to know is why so many reliable sources use a name other than what the subject himself uses. Such an odd situation does not arise for no reason; reliable sources are not so capricious. There must be a reason. Is it because there is a strong convention in the field that the subject is bucking (e.g. most modern-day botanists published under their initials: "A. S. George" not "Alex George")? Is it because the subject's preferred name is ambiguous, and reliable sources find it convenient to distinguish between the multiple Albert Does in their field by calling this one "Charles A. Doe"? Is it because the subject has changed their preferred name, and reliable sources are unwilling to abandon use of the name under which the subject is best known? Is it because reliable sources consider the preferred name confusing, as the case of an actor named "Igor Thomas Cruise" who decides to go by the name "I. Tom Cruise"? Or is it an attempt to impute the character of the subject, as the case of "Barack Hussein Obama"? Until I have an explanation for why such an unusual situation might have come about, I wouldn't be willing to grant that "there is nothing controversial or contentious about the choice". Conversely, if I take it as given that "there is nothing controversial or contentious about the choice", then I find your scenario to be entirely unbelievable. Hesperian 13:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The questions you just raised are exactly what I am talking about when I say we should consider "whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself". All your questions are valid and would need looking into. I think you are assuming that discussing whether something should happen will inevitably result in it actually happening. Not so. The answer to the question: "whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself" can be (and I would even say usually will be) "No, in this case it shouldn't". The only point is that it is appropriate to consider the question. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

a different take on the issue

You know... I just had a thought... we have been looking at the issue of "what the entity calls itsef" as a NPOV issue (I would agree that it certainly can be, but would disagree that it always is). However it is also a WP:Precision issue... the name that an entity uses for itself being a factor in a discussion as to what title is the most precise. If the rest of you agree with this thought... then I don't see a need to specify that we should consider "what the entity calls itself", because we already say we should be as precise as possible. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. EastTN raised this above, stating "it's important to avoid confusing closely related groups", to which I replied "yes, which is why 'precision' is one of our principles. This has nothing to do with self-identification." Hesperian 13:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it does have something to do with self-identification... precision is more than just "avoiding confuing closely related groups"... it also means a degree of "accuracy". This raises the following questions: is the name an entity calls itself more accurate than some other name? If so, is it more accurate because it is a self-identification. These are questions that need to be asked ... but I don't think they can be answered in the abstract. They need to be thought about in the context of a specific subject. The answer is going to be different for different subjects. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the real issue?

Why are we so concerned that merely considering what an entity calls itself is per se a violation of a neutral point of view? If anything, we seem to be raising this to a level of refusing to consider self-identification that is itself non-neutral. I find it very difficult to believe that editors do not even consider self-identification (I certainly do), or that by stating that it can be a consideration, we're somehow going to damage Misplaced Pages's neutrality - especially when the very next statement is "Relevant Misplaced Pages principles such as maintaining a neutral point of view must be adhered to." What are we so afraid of here? It's not correct to say that the text "directly contradicts our neutral point of view policy," given that it explicitly states that neutrality must be maintained. Neutrality really isn't an issue here. What else are we worried about? Are there titles that are actively being proposed that we don't like, and that we want to object to on this basis? I'm truly baffled. Why do we need to codify, even if informally, a policy that would "forbid" our even considering"a particular point of view" - and how is that neutral? We seem to be arguing that we can consider every point of view in choosing a title except that of the entity itself - any entity, and not just controversial ones, or ones that have tried to somehow manipulate their titles, or ones of a type where we've had problems before. If we were talking about a policy that went further than "may consider" while "maintaining a neutral point of view", I'd understand the concern. As it stands, though, the arguments made in opposition simply aren't applicable. I'm struggling to understand the real concern here. EastTN (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this stems from a particular naming (er... titling) dispute. Specifically the dispute between the names "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church". Some editors want the policy worded so that it supports entitling the article Catholic Church while others want it worded so it supports entitling the article Roman Catholic Church. Both sides claim that the other name is POV. The side that supports the unadorned "Catholic Church" uses self-identification as the main argument for their preference (while it can be argued that the Church itself self-identifies with both names... it does use "Catholic Chruch" more often). Compounding the issue is the fact that the Anglican Church self-identifies with the term Catholic, and uses "Roman Catholic" in referring to the Church run out of the Vatican (something that influences many English language sources)... while the Vatican run Church does not accept the Anglican self-identification as "Catholic". So who's self-identification should wikipedia follow? Each faction wants the policy worded in a way that will best support their view.

Now, before people leap all over me and say I am mistating the debate... I admit that am simplifying it significantly. This is a debate that has been going on for over three years here on Misplaced Pages. And I can not sum up three years worth of arguments in one paragraph. But whether you agree with my summary or not... it is the issue that is underlying much of the current debate over when and how self-identification factors into what we entitle our articles. Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that helps. I was beginning to figure it must be something like that. There are always going to be particularly difficult cases like that. The old adage "bad cases make bad law" seems to apply here. I think we're better off writing good, solid general guidance, and then making it clear that whatever else we may consider, in each specific case we still have to make sure our final choice is as neutral as possible.EastTN (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Holy hell, the voice of reason! Quick, someone block EastTN before his attitude catches on!</snide commentary>
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 03:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In most cases there is no significant divergence between the common name and self-identification. But if the self identifying name is not one of the common names used in reliable sources, then it should carry little to no weight. Take the case of the artist formally known as Prince, when he changed his name from Prince to squiggle, there some confusion as to what to call him at first until the news media coalesced around the name "the artist formally known as Prince". When he changed his name back to Prince, there was probably a lag between him doing so and most of the media calling him Prince. (It depends how the journalists chose to do it they could have written "The artist formally known as Prince has asked to be called Prince" or "Prince has changed his name back to Prince"). The point is that many people and institutions change their names, but we should be conservative in our changing of article titles, until the majority of reliable sources start to use the new name, as our article title is not an endorsement/(or condemnation) of the change but a reflection of what is used in reliable sources to aid the finding of articles containing information. So rather than looking at self-identification, perhaps we should be looking at recent reliable source for a guidance ("recent" in this case can be defined as after an entity came into existence or changes its name). -- PBS (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip... Based on this last comment, I want to make sure that we are on the same page... the most recent itteration of the "compromise" indicates that any considerarion of "self-identification" would happen after we have determined that there isn't an obvious common name... What we are talking about is the situation where the self-identification is one of several relatively common names under discussion. Do you think that we should not even raise the issue of self-identification in that situation? If not, is there any situation where you think discussing self-identification would be appropriate? Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that self-identification IS and HAS been used as a factor in the choice of article titles by Misplaced Pages editors. It has also been supported in Misplaced Pages policy and guidance since at least 2005. So it is those wishing to remove self-identification as a factor to be considered, who are wanting to alter policy. On the issue of changing article titles - again this is what Misplaced Pages editors DO. Cheryl Tweedys name was changed to Cheryl Cole within days of her marriage. The article formally called the Sears Tower now has a new name, firmly based on self-identification - rather than waiting months to years for reliable sources to reach a majority verdict.

As EastTN says, the compromise wording, objected to by Hesperian, is merely an attempt to state a simple and unexceptional fact: that self-identification is a legitimate factor editors may consider when choosing names. In most cases this produces an accurate result which has the benefit of also being up to date, and least offensive to the entity concerned. Calling Mohammed Ali, "Cassius Clay", or the Dalits "Untouchables" is not beneficial to anyone. And no one has yet provided an instance where use of the self-identifying name of an entity has caused any major problem. I feel that some people have taken a doctrinaire position on trying to remove self-identification from policy based on other individual issues - a bad way of attempting to write general policy. Xandar 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, I'm very late to this discussion and confess I have not read through all the archives, however once again I feel you are lapsing into a form of denial when you accuse others of being "doctrinaire", the very thing that can legitimately be thrown at you. Lets be very honest here, you want the article which is by far most commonly referred to in independent reference sources as "Roman Catholic Church" to be named "Catholic Church" for sectarian reasons, i.e "we are the true church" etc. My own opinion is that you cannot see from any perspective other than your own because you feel you know "The Truth" and others must conform to that. The only thing you have persuaded me off, though unwittingly, is that the concept of "separation of Church and state" is the right way because I fear a society governed by the philosophy of you and Nancy Heisse that represents the worse of Catholicism. Taam (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this applies to a much broader range of articles than the Catholic Church. The article Myanmar existed for several years until a group decided that Myanmar was not acceptable and the old name, Burma, the more appropriate title (can't be condoning a military coup after all...it offends our sensibilities). The group at the time, by majority vote which we parade as consensus changed the name regardless of the vastly more numerous references that support Myanmar as the actual name. Self-identification should be used because it it appropriate, because no reference is superior to the right of an entity to name itself, and it prevents the silliness of ignorant, temporary majorities from inflicting their will on the world of Misplaced Pages.

Frankly, it boggles my mind that anyone would dispute the legitimacy of an entity to name itself. Others may disagree and that disagreement may be noted, but to dispute it is really stretching things out of balance and proportion. This is all very simiple, what is your name? X also confirms this is your name. Guess what...the name is what it is. Case closed let's go home. No one has provided one reason why self-identification is bad or incorrect. Certainly editors have confused it with official names, but offical names are not preferred names. Entities use various names and they have a preferred name; we should use it and enlighten others with the reality of them. --

It boggles your mind because, like Xandar, you want to defend a particular articles name that relates to your church. You also wish to appear ecumenical but from my perspective, i.e your contribution to the Roman Catholic Church article, its more at the level of "Uncle Tom" and what you evangelize on your user page is best put into practice rather than appear to be another "religious" hypocrite. Taam (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"it boggles my mind that anyone would dispute the legitimacy of an entity to name itself"... no one is disputing the legitimacy of an entity to name itself... what we are concerned with is when, how and even whether we should use that name as an article Title in Misplaced Pages. There is a difference. Blueboar (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"No one has provided one reason why self-identification is bad or incorrect." Or rather, I disagree with the reasons provided, but I have no coherent refutation of them, so I will simply deny they exist. Hesperian 04:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This debate is becoming very tiresome; the same claims are being wheeled out time and time again in spite of their having been conclusively refuted time and time again - we won't go anywhere like this. Clearly the majority are opposed to stressing self-identification as a factor in deciding article titles. Of course, in discussions of the titles of individual articles people are free to raise whatever arguments seem pertinent - they don't need permission from this page or any other. The most important thing is that we have the key objectives listed - recognizability, consistency and so on - and people can reach consensus as to how best to achieve those objectives in the case of a particular article or set of articles.--Kotniski (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

take a deap breath and start again

Indeed, I thought we had agreed that what ever consensus might or might not have been reached in the past, consensus can change, and so we needed to reach a new consensus on what the policy should say now.

So... let's start over... starting with where we do agree. I think we all agree that:

• Article titles should relfect the usage in reliable sources (and specifically reliable English language sources). (this is an application of WP:V)
• If a significant majority of reliable sources use a particular name for the subject (ie if there is what we call a "common name"), the title of our article should reflect that usage... even if that name is not the one preferred by the subject. (this is an application of the UNDUE section of NPOV)
• Other less common names should be mentioned in the lede. (this is an application of WP:NPOV)
• If the sources are split in what name they call the subject (ie if there is no clear "common name"), editors need to discuss the matter and choose between the various "relatively common" names that are used. (An application of WP:CONSENSUS).

Before I continue, does anyone disagree with any of the above? Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this only in relation to common names, or in relation to article titles in general? Because overall, we've recognized that commonness ("recognizability") is only one of the factors in choosing a title. We don't always choose between the "relatively common names" (although I think we should); look at the titles of the articles on Queen Victoria and Lord Byron for examples. --Kotniski (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point... Perhaps this would be best discribed as an expansion on the concept of "recognizability". Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, apart from my above caveat, I would agree with all this, but I think it's adequately said already. I don't think anything needs to be added to the page at the moment (though if things can be reworded to make them clearer, and preferably shorter, that would obviously be good).--Kotniski (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that (and have some sympathy with that view)... several others, however, disagree... so I am trying to see if there is any wiggle room where the two sides in this debate can meet and reach a new WP:Consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think BB's approach is good, but I have one concern. When applied to companies, countries, and people, I think the "preponderance of reliable sources" argument has a problem, and a more useful encyclopedia is one that is more up-to-date and reflects English-language renamings that have happened (and that reliable sources have shown to have happened). So I think the main articles should be at Myanmar and Xe Services, not Burma and Blackwater Worldwide: even though any count of reliable sources while take a while to "catch up" in which name is most frequently used for the subject of the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with this in broad concept... but not with using the Myanmar/Burma debate as an example... the difficulty with that specific debate is that it isn't simply a case where the subject renamed itself and the sources have not caught up. There are a significant number of modern "up-to-date" sources that continue to use Burma dispite the change in what the government calls itself. This is part of what makes the entire "self-identification" debate so tricky. Each debate is unique.

In 99% of our articles, there is no question or controversy. The title is obvious and all of our titling critera mesh. But we have huge problems and debates over the remaining 1%. Editors strongly disagree on what to do when our criteria don't mesh. At the moment we punt on the issue and say simply "discuss it and reach a consensus". This is less than satisfying for those in the middle of a titling dispute. They usually come to this page because they can't reach a consensus. I suppose the ultimate question is... can we give them more advice than we currently do? Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar's points. I would add one more:

• Whatever basis is used for choosing a title, it must be consistent with a neutral point of view.

I'd also make a few comments.

1. The real locus for this discussion concerns Blueboar's last bullet point - what is the appropriate guidance to give editors seeking a consensus when there is no clear "common name"?
2. It seems reasonable to give some guidance for this situation.
3. Self-identification is one among many common-sense factors for editors to consider in that case.

I think we'll end up with a better end result if we write with a less-experienced editor in mind, and try to provide useful, easy to understand guidance on how to think about these things, rather than writing with a more "legal" point of view trying craft the text so that it will support a particular result in a specific current dispute. EastTN (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

EastTN makes some good common-sense points, which should form the basis of policy guidance here. Blueboar is right to say that guidance should really say more than "come to a consensus", and we should list factors to be considered, including self-identification. Those basing their views on the outcome of one particular article debate are missing the point entirely. This is general guidance, expressing what Misplaced Pages editors actually do in these circumstances, and what works. Xandar 23:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, however often the same handful of POV-pushing bores insist on it, self-identification is not important; when it is English usage, as quite often, it is redundant; when it is not, it pushes the point of view of a minority as to what an organization is - and often the point of view of a minority as to who is the organization. If these essentially fraudulent arguments are repeated again, will it be time to ask an admin to intervene? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• We are here to communicate in English; what English calls something is neutral. Those who propose something else are declaring that their point of view is neutral.
• I do not think it useful to discuss this further; this is, at base, an administrative problem, not a content or policy one. A handful of people would like Misplaced Pages to be something other than it is, and think they can make it so by tweaking a policy page. There are plenty of projects which do what they would like - and more power to them; Wikinfo is a Misplaced Pages fork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Are you including me as one of the "handful of POV-pushing bores"? I'd appreciate it if you did not.
2. We've been specifically discussing the case where there is no "common name" in English.
3. To per se exclude any consideration of a group's self-identification is to single out a particular point of view for exclusion - that's no more neutral than arguing that a group's self-identification must always be controlling.
4. What English calls something is not, in fact, necessarily neutral - I grew up in a time and place where the generally accepted English "common name" for African Americans was a rather ugly pejorative.
5. The text we're discussing would explicitly say that, regardless of what other considerations may go into the selection, the final title chosen must be neutral. Arguing that it would codify a non-neutral approach to choosing article titles is simply incorrect.
6. I do not know what POV-pushing you may have run into. It seems clear to me, though, that both arguing that:

• Self-identification should always govern because any group has a right to choose its own name; and
• Self-identification can never be considered because it reflects a group's own particular point-of-view;
• . . . are equally non-neutral. (In fact, I would argue further that "tweaking a policy page" to preclude editors from ever even thinking about a group's self-identification is no more desirable than "tweaking" it to ensure that self-identification always gets special consideration.)

I'm not interested in manipulating policy to reach a particular result in a naming dispute - I'm not currently involved in any naming disputes. What I would like to see is clear, easily understood guidance for editors. I'd like to see that guidance discuss the factors most editors would consider in dealing with these issues. I'd also like to see it clearly state that the final title chosen - regardless of the basis for that choice - must be as neutral as possible. Neutrality should trump not only self-identification, but also the preponderance of the sources, common English usage, and anything else that might otherwise lead to a POV name to an article. EastTN (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you are including yourself by making a unreasonable parallel. There may be a case for including self-identification as a tie-breaker, but no one has ever come up with a reasonable example where we have done so, or should do so. Advice to ignore self-identification (which nobody has suggested) might well be harmless. On the other hand, anyone who holds that a group "has a right to choose their own name" is committed to academic and intellectual dishonesty. There is no such right; it is claim that, not only do groups have a right to emit propaganda, but they have a right to be successful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"reasonable parallel"? So far as I know, I have not even suggested that because a group "has a right to choose their own name" it also has a right to choose the title of any Misplaced Pages article addressing it. What I am arguing is:

1. Self-identification is one common sense-factor that editors can and should consider (I certainly consider it, it's been a consideration in some of the discussions I've participated in, and some of the more obscure article titles simply could not have been chosen on any other basis);
2. Self-identification should not automatically govern - not only are there other factors that should be considered, such as the relatively frequency of other names used in the sources available to us, and the search terms readers are most likely to use, but the final governing decision is always going to be neutrality;
3. Pages such as this should give real, practical guidance to less experience editors - to do that, it makes sense to provide a fairly complete, meaningful list of the factors that might be considered in choosing an article title when there is no single, obvious common name;
4. The tenor of the discussion to date seems, to me at least, to be suggesting that self-identification should be excluded because it should never be relied upon by editors in deciding upon an article title. That seems, to me at least, to go too far;
5. Whatever considerations may be used in choosing an article title, the end result has to pass the test of neutrality.

This does appear to me be a situation where people are trying to make law based on a bad set of facts. We'll get a better result if we slow down, write clear and simple guidance for the average editor, and fight what are really neutrality battles on their own merits in another, appropriate forum.EastTN (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Every argument of self-identification I have seen has been an effort to push a point of view. usually that of the current management of an organization; but not always.

Self-identification should never be relied on, and those who would rely on it should be banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? How about when the article on the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies was renamed the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to reflect the new name given it in the 110th Congress? Exactly how was that "an effort to push a point of view"? What "view" was being pushed, and just how long would we have kept the old name? Or when the General Accounting Office was changed to the Government Accountability Office? Sure, you can see why the name was changed - but just how long should we have kept the old name, and how many secondary sources using the new name should we have waited on before making the move? Your assertion that "elf-identification should never be relied on, and those who would rely on it should be banned" is too glib and simplistic. Organizations change their names. Sects that virtually all sources lump together under a single name, which in many cases is more "technical" than "common" (e.g., Regular Baptists, Free Will Baptists), must be given titles that distinguish between them (e.g., Association of Regular Baptist Churches vs. General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, United American Free Will Baptist Church vs. United American Free Will Baptist Conference). Editors are considering the formal self-identification for these groups and organizations. Just because someone could use self-identification in a way that violates other Misplaced Pages principles - such as neutrality - does not mean that it is never helpful or that editors who even think about a group's self-identification should be per se banned.EastTN (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"I just ran 100 metres in 2 seconds."

"According to this stopwatch it took you 20 seconds."

"No, it was 2 seconds."

"You're biased. The stopwatch is neutral."

"To refuse to take into account my personal view of how long it took me to run a hundred metres is to single out a particular point of view for exclusion - that's no more neutral than arguing that my opinion must always be controlling."

Hesperian 00:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification labelling != self-assessment of an action performed. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

PMA... I know what you are trying to say, but please... let's keep our terminology clear here. Barring things like trademarked names, a person or entity does have the right to choose its own name... what it does not have is the right to dictate what the title of the Misplaced Pages article on it should be. That is determined by Wikipedians (who are guided by our Policies and Guidelines). We really need to stop discussing the issue of names and focus on the issue of titles.

No, it does not; an organization has the right to refer to itself as it pleases, within any limits one may grant on obscenity or hate-speech. It does not have any right to insist that others do likewise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we take a second deep breath?

I'd like to suggest we take a second shot at Blueboar's attempt to find common ground. Based on the discussion above, I'd like to throw out the following expansion of his list:

1. "Commonness" or "recognizability" is one of the important factors editors should consider in choosing article titles (in addition to being "Recognizable", titles should also be "Easy to find", "Precise" and "Consistent");
2. Article titles should normally reflect the usage in reliable sources (and specifically reliable English language sources). (this is an application of WP:V);
3. If a significant majority of reliable sources use a particular name for the subject (ie if there is what we call a "common name"), the title of our article should normally reflect that usage... even if that name is not the one preferred by the subject. (this is an application of the UNDUE section of NPOV);
4. Other less common names should be mentioned in the lede. (this is an application of WP:NPOV);
5. If the sources are split in what name they call the subject (ie if there is no clear "common name"), editors need to discuss the matter and choose between the various "relatively common" names that are used. (An application of WP:CONSENSUS);
6. Whatever basis is used for choosing a title, it must be consistent with a neutral point of view.

I still think there's benefit in providing some meaningful guidance for how editors might go about seeking a consensus. But before we get there, can we agree on the points above? EastTN (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with those points :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Largely unobjectionable... but if you're going to number them, then "Article titles should normally reflect usage in reliable sources" should be number one, preferably in bold, blinking red, in an extra large font. Everything else flows from that one point—except that we often impose consistency over and above the consistency found in reliable sources, and even that is controversial. Hesperian 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no agreement on the introduction of "consistency" to this policy! I still think is too open to abuse. For example an editor who often contributes to this policy page has recently argued that although (s)he does not disagree that the majority of reliable sources do not use diacritics when spelling a certain town in Poland, the town should keep its diacritic because articles other Polish towns on Misplaced Pages do! This use of consistency makes a mockery of following the common usage in English language sources. (Another editor has suggested that diacritic usage is common usage in other encyclopaedias, which is within the guidelines, and certainly an argument that should be considered). -- PBS (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it the same editor (me) in both cases? Anyway, "makes a mockery of" and "abuse" only makes sense if you think that commonness (Google counts) is the sole criterion to be used. But clearly it isn't, as endless discussion on this page has shown - consistency, conciseness and so on are also factors to be taken into account, alongside commonness (or better - recognizability). Arguments made at Talk:Kraków indicate why consistency is important in this case - if we mix names with diacritics and names without just on the basis of relative Google counts, then readers will be misled. The best example of abuse of consistency is the royalty guideline (which amazingly you seem fairly comfortable with), which has us use names like Victoria of the United Kingdom, which are totally without support in sources, purely on the basis of "consistency". --Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look through the copious discussions on Victoria you will not find me voicing an opinion either in favour or against moving that page. Long before this policy included reliable sources as a criteria, I was in involved in the discussion of the wording "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen ...", this was because popular usage is for "William the Conqueror", "Bloody Mary" etc, but since the introduction of "Reliable sources" in the policy, I would be in favour of altering the guideline to fit in with usage in reliable sources. However for nobility and royalty, reliable sources have to be looked at in context: a book may refer to "King Richard" without an ordinal because in the context of the book it is obvious with Richard is meant, this means we have to give more weight to reliable sources that unambiguously name royalty and nobility (eg general histories which cover a span of time which includes many kings and queens, other encyclopaedias, the ODNB etc). -- PBS (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think on the naming of foreigners and places we should use the names as they appear in reliable sources. As I explained looking at the discussion on Krakow, I personally like Cracow, but common English usage in reliable sources is for Krakow without an funny foreign squiggles, so that is the name and spelling we should use. If people put aside their own personal preference and instead followed the usage in reliable sources, most pages would have one unambiguous name. For example of the people who have expressed an opinion on whether we should use Cracow, Krakow or Kraków, only one other person (apart from myself) has initially based their argument on sources (arguing that other encyclopaedias use Kraków). Instead most editors who have expressed an opinion have done so using a number of none source based arguments to support their own personal preference (Which boils down to "I like this one because I grew up using it so we should use it here, because other formulations of the name look odd/wrong to me").-- PBS (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not what it boils down to at all - it's more like "this form of the name also appears in many (though not most) reliable sources, so it's perfectly legitimate, and it also has other advantages (consistency and precision), so on balance it's the best name". FWIW, I grew up using Cracow. (By contrast, "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is almost unknown in reliable sources, except occasionally with "Queen" added, and has nothing whatever to support it except internal Misplaced Pages consistency, so I really can't understand how someone with your views can fail to view that title with utter distaste.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Of the three "Kraków" is the least common in reliable soruces, and again you are using consistency in exactly the way which I warned it would be used to push a preference for a name that is not commonly used in reliable sources. How is "Kraków" more precise (as defined in the policy under "WP:PRECISION") than the very large majority usage of "Krakow" in reliable English language sources?

Please note what I wrote "I would be in favour of altering the guideline to fit in with usage in reliable sources. ... " If that was done then Queen Victoria article might well move. -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This still seems to be inconsistent with several of our guidelines, which impose names which are not among the "relatively common" ones even when one or more common names exist. I'd be happy if we did things as described above (though we need to relate it to the "list of desirables" that we have at the start of the policy), but we can't state it as policy, because as long as we religiously stick to made-up titles like Victoria of the United Kingdom, it simply isn't true.--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is where PBS's "make them invoke an explicit exception to the policy" idea comes in. Hesperian 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't find that - can you explain or link to it?--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was harking back to the great flora debate and other issues of previous years. As I understand it, PBS was of the view that specific guidelines that blatantly do not conform to this policy should either be made to conform, or explicitly declared to be exceptions. Either way, the main policy page need not seek working that circumscribes these unusual cases. That is, we write a policy that ignores the bizarreness going on over at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), because that bizarreness is rationalised as an exception to the policy anyhow. Hesperian 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the guidelines should contradict policy, although I would concede that occasionally WP:IAR applies to the naming policy as for Liancourt Rocks. The Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) is in my opinion far less of a problem than the Flora guideline which I still think should be modified to fall in line with this policy as it starts from a totally different premise from this policy and although for 95%+ of Flors cases converges on this policy and end up with the same result as just using this policy for guidance, for the minority of cases it is at odds with this policy and so ought to be changed to comply. -- PBS (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, it's not intended to be inconsistent with the other guidelines. The way I tried to address that was with the first point, which says that there are other considerations in addition to the "most common" rule (following the first section of the current page) and the last point which specifically says that neutrality will trump common usage (or anything else, for that matter). Does that not make the point clearly enough? I think it's clearer on this point than the current text. Is there something more/better/different we can do to address that issue? I do think that guidance should be based on the actual best practices of experienced editors. EastTN (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying the current text is great either, but I still don't think this proposed text has got it quite right. It's basically starting off by saying that criteria A, B and C matter; but then going on to say that only criterion A actually matters.--Kotniski (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We have to write this policy with the typical article in mind... and stop worrying about the few exceptions that might not fit. For the typical article, we do want our editors to "follow the sources", since "following the sources" is a direct application of Misplaced Pages's core polices: WP:V, WP:NPOV and even WP:NOR. Thus, WP:COMMONNAME is a half step higher in importance than the other criteria.

As for the few exceptions... I have no problem with editors involking WP:IAR and creating an article title that does not follow this policy. The key is that, as with any invokation of IAR, editors need to be able to express why doing so is in the best interest of Wikipeida. They need to demonstrate that they have a good reason to invoke IAR. The same goes for Project wide conventions. Not a problem... if there is a good reason and a solid consensus behind it. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But in this case,, it's precisely those exceptional cases that makes people consult the policy. For 99% of articles people just choose the obviously right title. It would be pointless to write a policy to describe what happens when no policy is needed, knowing that in the exceptional cases where the policy is needed, what we are writing is likely to be wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We should be able to strike a balance that emphasizes common usage, while still recognizing the other considerations that might be applicable. It seems to me that the current text in Deciding an article title actually does a pretty good job of that. Personally, I'd add neutrality as a final acid test, but the section is pretty solid as it is. Where I think we could use more work is in the next section (WP:COMMONNAME). "When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best" really doesn't provide any meaningful guidance. EastTN (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence should probably go altogether, now it's been reduced to that form. The reaching of the consensus is the subject of the "Deciding an article title" section, as per my comment below.--Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If I can suggest a slightly different approach, we shouldn't be worrying about the "Common names" section so much as the section before it, "Deciding an article title". It's that section which describes the thought processes and the balancing of different criteria that go towards reaching a choice of title. The "Common names" section should serve basically as an expansion on the "recognizability" criterion, not try to duplicate the purpose of the previous section. Does anyone think that the wording of the "Deciding an article title" section could be improved?--Kotniski (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if it moves us forward, I'm willing to go for it! What did you have in mind? EastTN (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski... there will be times when every one of our policies will be "wrong" given the unique issues of a specific article... that is why we have WP:IAR. Our job is to express "Best Practice", not to cover every eventuality that might come along. In fact, it is impossible for us to cover every eventuatlity... becasue these situations are unique. The solution to one situation may be diametrically different from the solution to another somewhat similar situation. You can not (and should not) write policy based on unique situations.

As for the idea that WP:NPOV trumps WP:COMMONNAME... no... COMMONNAME is a direct application of WP:NPOV. Remember that neutrality on Misplaced Pages does not mean that we treat all viewpoints as being equally valid... it means we give things due weight in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. If a significant majority of reliable sources use a particular name or term for something, this name or term should be given more weight in our article on it. Thus that name or term is used as the title, while other, alternative names or terms (reflecting significant but minority usage in the sources) are given their due weight by being mentioned prominently (and in bold letters) in the lede.

In other words, WP:COMMONNAME is WP:NPOV in action. This is why it should be given a priority in deciding an article name. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that WP:COMMONNAME is "is a direct application of WP:NPOV." It hasn't been all that uncommon for the most "common" term used to refer to a race or other group to be pejorative. In most cases the term most frequently used in the applicable sources will be neutral, but not always - particularly in the case of groups or organizations that are unpopular, discriminated against, or otherwise held in low regard. In that case neutrality and encyclopedic tone should cause us to make a different choice. EastTN (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Who defines whether the term or name is pejorative? If a term is used by a significant majority of reliable sources, I would say that the term is by definition neutral. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In most cases it will be. But neutrality goes beyond "majority rules" - it also requires an "editorial neutrality" in which we approach topics with a fair, disinterested tone that "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject" and doesn't "endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." As a thought experiment, even if the majority of sources referred to the "Tea Bag Party", we would still have to select a more neutral title, such as the Tea Party movement. And yes - that requires us to collectively make editorial judgments. We make judgments regarding neutrality all the time, though. Please understand me - I really don't think we should elevate self-identification over everything else, and I do believe that most article titles can be based on an appropriate "common name." But there will be difficult cases that require more thought - especially when there's not a single, generally accepted common name. In some of these cases we will need to ask ourselves if "most common" really means "most neutral". EastTN (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, who says that "Tea Party movement" is more neutral than "Tea Bag Party"?... you are substituting your own personal opinion over that of reliable soruces... which is exactly what NPOV tells us not to do. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the context, and the jokes that have been made with reference to Teabagging, I think that one's a no brainer. Do you really want to argue that this particular appellation isn't one that, at least in intent, "disparages its subject"? (However we may feel about that particular movement.) Sure, it's an extreme example - but I chose it to make a point. For the tough cases, achieving neutrality can involve more than word counts. EastTN (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're oversimplifying the guidance given in Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view by focusing on one of the issues raised to the exclusion of the rest. It does speak very clearly to balancing points of view based on their prevalence in the literature. But it also says more than that. It doesn't just require that we avoid undue weight, but it also requires that we treat all of the points of view we address "fairly, with a disinterested tone." We can neither "sympathizes with nor disparage" the subject, and we can neither "endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." That means we can't disparage a viewpoint simply because it's in the minority. Again, in most cases the "common name" won't do that. But if it does, then neutrality will require us to adopt a title that doesn't that is encyclopedic in tone and does not disparage the subject. Does that mean it has to be a title that the subject agrees with, or uses for itself? Of course not. But neutrality doesn't mean we endorse the majority view - it simply means that we give it proportionate time in our discussion. Other factors are also relevant in achieving a genuinely neutral article. EastTN (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So you think calling an article William Jefferson Clinton would be a breach of our neutral point of view policy? I agree with your conclusion, but not with the reason you give.--Kotniski (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about a violation ... there is a good argument that "William Clinton" and "Bill Clinton" are actually the same name (Bill simply being a deminutive form of William) and thus interchangable. However, my understanding is that NPOV would indicate that the article should be at the more commonly used Bill Clinton (where in fact it is... thus following WP:COMMONNAME.) Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a neutrality question - it's a matter of recognizability and ease of finding the article. Both names are perfectly neutral, but "Bill Clinton" is more likely to be the name that readers are searching for, and more likely to be the one that they recognize. This is a great example, in my mind, of why it's a mistake to assume that the "common name" rule is best justified on the basis of neutrality. "Bill Clinton", "William Clinton", and "William Jefferson Clinton" are all equally neutral - we have to choose between them on another basis (though "Slick Willie" would clearly be a problem). And, as I've already mentioned, I have personal experience of "common names" that are definitely not neutral. I would suggest separating the issues of whether a title is "Recognizable" and whether it's "Neutral." The prevalence of a particular usage may be relevant to both questions, but they are different questions (and there's more involved with neutrality than just how frequently a particular name is used).EastTN (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Following up on that, I'd suggest explicitly adding "Neutrality" as one of the criteria for choosing article titles:

• Neutral - Article titles must be consistent with a neutral point of view.
• Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.
• Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).
• Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
• Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)
• Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles. EastTN (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Absolutely and unconditionally oppose the first point, as vacuous in itself and inciting imbecile political correctness. Usage is neutral, but it must be in the appropriate register. Even in 1911, the Britannica's article title was "Negro". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - if nothing else it explicitly requires us to use the "appropriate register." Do you seriously intend to argue that taking an entire sentence here to remind editors of one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages is going to cause concrete harm?EastTN (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Neutrality" is frequently misunderstood by new editors. For example, someone at Multiple chemical sensitivity is arguing this week that the article isn't "neutral" because it clearly communicates widespread expert opinion, rather than leaving the reader to pick his way between apparently equal claims by proponents and opponents. Similarly, many transgender people complain that the term Homosexual transsexual is inherently insulting and demeaning, because (1) it defines sexual orientation according to birth sex instead of current gender and (2) they disagree with the (widely, but not universally accepted) academic idea that transwomen who are sexually attracted to men are different from transwomen who are not attracted primarily to men that they term is based on. At some level, readers and editors will say, "How can this insult be 'neutral'?" -- but it is, because this is the only term ever used to write about it.

It might therefore be helpful to explain: "Article titles must be consistent with a neutral point of view. A neutral title reflects the choice of terms by high-quality reliable sources, not the personal preferences of editors." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I just think it can be a bit more difficult than simply counting work occurrences. EastTN (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing that makes "use common name" NOT the same thing as NPOV are those occasions when the most common name is either out of date, perjorative and considered perjorative by the entity it refers to - as with Dalits v Untouchables. Nor is "neutrality" always the golden bullet, because in some instances two names will exist with almost equal usage, one will be favoured by group A, and another by group B. Which is the neutral choice? In such circumstances, it is common sense to follow the usage of the entity the name actually refers to, or of the group who actually live in the location in question. Xandar 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I have started a seperate section for the discussion of neutrality and article titles (so that when I ask the good folks as WT:NPOV to drop by and share their thoughts, it will be easy for them to find it. We may wish to copy some of these comments down to that section. Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. EastTN (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to PMA's "Usage is neutral" comment, I have long agreed, but now have my doubts. I noticed the other day that our article on the recent Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident not Climategate. The latter is the most common name in reliable sources, but there is a perception that that name is propaganda pushed by those who wish the "incident" to be perceived as a "scandal". Thus, in this case, NPOV trumped usage in reliable sources. And I find myself not in strenuous disagreement with that decision. Hesperian 23:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because the decision to use the more complicated title was not actually based on WP:NPOV, but upon editors' conception of what seemed more "neutral" to them. Your example is a misunderstanding of "neutrality" resulting in political correctness improperly trumping what is actually stated at NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it's good that editors' conceptions outweigh the words that happen to be written on policy pages... But we actually have a similar example (the Attorneygate one) one this policy page (WP:AT#Descriptive titles). If we think this line of thinking is wrong, we should remove that example (though if consensus was against Climategate, then it would probably still be against Attorneygate, so the example seems to stand).--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have said this before, but it is worth saying again... it does us no good to point to examples to "prove" our points... because we can find an example that will "prove" just about any point we wish to make (or counter the point someone else made). We can find current article titles that are exceptions to every single one of our titling criteria, and titles that are exceptions to the exceptions... and even exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions. Each article is unique, and the issues that impact how we entitle one article will not apply to how we entitle another article.

All we can do is explain what "Best Practice" (as it relates to the hypothetical typical article) is... and not try to write firm "rules" that will resolve every dispute. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Blueboar makes some common sense points, but the issue raised by Hesperian has not been addressed. On the one hand, complex naming disputes are never going to be solved by reading this policy on its own. However, having said that, if the resoluiton of a straight forward dispute has been guided by the usage of the article title in reliable sources, then this policy should be able to give examples of what sort of names can be externally validated. Can anyone give a good example of a article title dispute that was resolved by reference to reliable sources alone?
-The only good example I can think of relates to the use of the term Persian Language as opposed to the colloquial term Farsi. The resolution of which article title is used is more or less encapsulated in the section Persian_language#English_nomenclature, and is effectively resolved through the citation of reliable secondary sources which discuss the origins and usage of the two rival terms. -Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another example is Continental Freemasonry... that title chosen over alternatives ("Liberal Freemasonry", "Irregular Freemasonry" and "Latin Freemasonry") purely due to predominance of usage in reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving the archives

It seems this page was moved without moving the talk subpages (i.e. the archives). Should this be corrected (I assume it should, otherwise they don't show up in the archive search box at the top)? Does anyone have a quick way of doing it (e.g. move the page back and then move it again with the "move subpages as well" option that I believe admins have available)?--Kotniski (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Beyond my skill set. I have left a note with an admin that may be able to take care of this. (here) Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just got around to doing this. The archive pages are all moved. When doing this, I noticed that they were all not that large so I increased the size for future archives. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A slightly different question. Should the archives like Misplaced Pages talk:Naming Conventions (Names and titles)/ Old Archive 2 be moved or left at the old name? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This move has left its derivatives at the old name, and has also broken all the shortcuts pointing here. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I completely missed this because I've been purposefully avoiding this page for months. Good deal. I'd say just leave all of the old archives where they are, but they need to be linked from here somehow. It'll take a little work, but just get the page names and create an {{archivebox}} with links to them (alternatively, a single navigation page could be created...). Their still there, and perfectly accessible through search, so anything else is really overkill.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I added 'Naming Conventions (Names and titles)' archives to the box. I could not find an archive 1. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe "Naming conventions (names and titles)" (however capitalized) is a past name for WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), not for this page.--Kotniski (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why, but I just found 3 more in that series that were not included in the subpage listing. I added those to the archive box. If they should be moved to be subpages of another page, we can do that. Maybe some discussion here or simply no objections to your proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the archives for "Naming conventions (names and titles)" belong with the project guideline WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). One thing that changing the title of this page is making clear is just how many project level "naming convention" guidelines are out there. We should check them to make sure that they don't conflict with this policy. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And to gather ideas to improve the policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes... perhaps I should have said: ... "We should check them to see if they conflict with this policy... then we should discuss any conflicts and try to resolve them (which might mean changing the guideline, but might also mean changing the policy.)" Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as a general FYI: If anyone sees any opportunity to consolidate the multitude of Naming convention (my favorite sub-topic) into either this document or any broader document, then you can pretty much count on my implicit support.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and Article titles

This is actually worth a seperate section... and I want to get input from the regulars at WT:NPOV.

I think WP:NPOV does apply to Article titles. Note I did not say that titles must be neutral. I think there is a subtle difference here. I would encourage everyone to go back and re-read WP:NPOV so that you understand what that policy does and does not say. Then think about how it applies how we entitle our articles. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree on this point. The relevant section is Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Article titles. Also of relevance, but not related to article titles directly is WP:AVOIDSPLIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To continue... I want to discuss how WP:UNDUE impacts on article titles. This is a continuation of the discussions we have had above... some of you have expressed the opinion that WP:NPOV should trump WP:COMMONNAME... but to my mind, WP:COMMONNAME is an application of WP:UNDUE. Thus, WP:NPOV can not trump WP:COMMONNAME as they are the same thing.

WP:Undue indicates that being neutral does not mean that we treat all viewpoints equally... instead neutality means we give viewpoints due weight in accordance with reliable sources. If a significant majority of sources express a given viewpoint, then that viewpoint is given more weight in our article. This applies to how we entitle articles. Neutrality in naming articles does not mean we treat all possible titles equally... neutrality means we give each possible title due weight in accordance with the reliable sources. If a significant majority of sources call something by a particular name, or use a particular term in describing it, then that name or term should be given more weight in our article... by using that name or term in the article title. To give alternative names their due weight, we should prominently mention them as being alternatives in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the language of WP:ABC trumping WP:XYZ (WP:ANYTHING should try to most lucidly express the current consensus on the matters within its subject area - it doesn't become the consensus), but as to the substance, I agree with Blueboar.--Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this discussion - it's a critical one. I do think you're focusing on only one aspect of achieving neutrality to the exclusion of some other, equally important considerations. Avoiding undue weight is a central principle, but so is maintaining an impartial tone. The NPOV guidance explicitly says that we have to use an "editorially neutral, point of view", and that "he neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." In the Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming section says:

"Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."

That seems to me to be a very clear statement that neutrality is a consideration of its own, separate and apart from which name is most "common." It does say that "proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources" - but we're discussing situations where there is no clearly identifiable "common name," and current groups rather than historical events (which, like Biographies of Living People, arguably requires an extra effort for neutrality).

Again, I don't believe that self-identification of a group should be dispositive for Misplaced Pages article titles, nor that we must always come up with titles that the groups involved would agree with. I am arguing that we should choose article titles that are neutral, do not "disparage" their subjects, that encourage multiple viewpoints and do not "endorse or oppose" a particular point of view. In some cases that may not be the same as the most common usage in the sources we're reviewing. EastTN (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality, but how do you enforce such a lofty objective? The only way is external validation, and that is by using that title which supports its notability, i.e. the title has been addressed in (or better still defined by) significant coverage from reliable secodnary sources that are indepedent. Another way of saying this is extraordinary names (such as "segmented" article names) must be supported by extraordinary sources. That way, if an article title is highly judgemental (e.g. Moors murders), then the sourcing to support can be externally verified. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the first place we need to look is disinterested, neutral reliable sources. For most articles there should be a small set of well-recognized, accepted names in use by such sources that we can look to in selecting an article title. But what makes that work as a basis for achieving neutrality is not the frequency of the usage, but that it has become commonly accepted among sources that are themselves neutral and disinterested. For most articles we should be basing our work on a wide array of neutral and disinterested sources. But if:

• A topic is highly controversial, so that most of the sources are not neutral and disinterested, or
• No clear consensus regarding terminology has developed in the literature;

then some sort of editorial judgment is required. I believe that in those instances, which should be very unusual (or even "extraordinary", as you put it), making a good editorial call on neutrality will often require more thought than simply basing the article title on the name that is used most frequently. We also need to look at the nature of the sources using each term (are they neutral, for, or against; are they themselves encyclopedic or disinterested), whether the various terms are used purely descriptively or for "advocacy" purposes (is the terminology "spun" - for or against the subject of the article), whether the language is unnecessarily "loaded". In some cases we may be better served to pick up a minority usage because it reflects the most neutral and encyclopedic sources, rather than a more common usage that's "spun" in favor of a particular point of view. In other cases neutrality may be best served by picking a terminology that's not associated with either side of a controversial topic. Again, I really don't believe this should be an issue for something like 99% of Misplaced Pages's articles. But for the tough cases, I don't think we can necessarily equate "neutrality" with the name or appellation that has the highest word count.EastTN (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I may have misunderstood your question. How do you "enforce" neutral choices of article titles? The same way we "enforce" neutrality more generally, I guess. I'd like to see the guidelines on article titles stress the importance of neutrality a bit more strongly, and I think they could benefit from some more detailed discussion of the factors editors could/should consider when thinking about cases like this. (And I agree that in cases where we do have significant coverage from neutral, disinterested secondary sources, and there's a consensus among those sources, the guidelines should call for using the consensus terminology - but not all cases will be that neat.) Beyond that, I think we have to trust the process and the community.EastTN (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that reliance on "editorial judgement" or a "consensus of the editors" is the right approach to follow because sometimes local consensus may conflict with Misplaced Pages's content policies. I understand that some article topics may be the subject of "biased" coverage and this may give rise to "loaded" language, but that may be a problem related to the absense of broad based coverage (i.e. a lack of notability) or a lack of reliability of external sources (again, a problem associated with lack of notability).
Having said that, there is no such thing as a neutral or unbiased source. On the contrary, we value reliable secondary sources that are independent for the commentary, criticisms and analysis that provide context for the reader; it is precisely the in-depth opinions of disinterested commentators that is the key hallmark of significant coverage. This is recognised by WP:NPOV which says that "non-neutral terms...are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources". I think it is the purpose of this policy to define what is a consensus of the sources, rather than a consensus of the editors. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that editorial judgment or a local consensus should override Misplaced Pages's content policies - I simply meant to say that as a practical matter that's how all of these policies (including neutrality) are implemented and enforced (by the community working through the process). As for the consensus of the sources, I understand the point that you're trying to make. But whether we like it or not, editors are making these judgments, because they have to make them. Editors are deciding which sources are treating the subject in a neutral and disinterested fashion, which are partisan, and what that means in determining the "consensus of the sources" - or implicitly treating them all as if they were neutral and disinterested by default. Either way, they're making a decision on it. When there's not a clear consensus among the sources - due to controversy, changing views of the topic over time, or whatever - they're still selecting titles for their articles. The sentence in the WP:NPOV which says that "non-neutral terms...are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources" is important, but it's not the only thing that policy says. It's also relevant that it says "ometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. ... Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. ... Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." We need to consider all of the guidance, and in some situations where there's not a clear consensus in the sources it may make sense to base the title on something other than the name that's used by a plurality of the sources. In those case, I believe this is consistent with the content policies. EastTN (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I attempted once to introduce language into WP:Consensus to the effect that a "local consensus" to directly violate major content policies was simply invalid, but the editors at that page rejected it. IMO, the question of consensus is not "Do we agree to say that Mary is (unverifiable disparaging terms here)" but "Do we agree that saying Mary is (unverifiable disparaging terms here) complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Such language was in WP:Consensus when I first saw it, and for some time thereafter. What happened to it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's my basic problem. It seems to me that we're trying to treat this far too mechanically. Thinking about "Jack the Ripper" may be a good place to start. "Jack the Ripper" is not just a "consensus" name, it's effectively the only name in common use. We pretty much have to use it for the article title, because there aren't any other plausible choices. But if we knew who committed that series of murders, the analysis might be different. For instance, we have an article title Gary Ridgway instead of one titled the "Green River Killer", "Dennis Rader" instead of the "BTK Killer", "David Berkowitz" instead of "Son of Sam", "David Carpenter (serial killer)" instead of the "Trailside Killer", "Raymond Fernandez and Martha Beck" instead of the "Lonely Hearts Killers" and"Vincent Johnson" instead of the "Brooklyn Strangler". (A different decision was made in the case of the "Boston Strangler", where the attribution is disputed, in the case of the "Hillside Strangler", where two individuals were implicated, and in the case of the "Freeway Killer", where there were three independent killers - my point isn't that it always has to go one way or the other, but simply that the analysis becomes more complex.)

The easy ones are easy. But when we get to the hard topics, like "Pro-choice" and the "Pro-life movement", neutrality requires more than simply doing a Google search to determine whether "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" is used more often, or whether "pro-life" is used more than "anti-choice". I am definitely not saying that we shouldn't fully recognize the importance of considering what the consensus in the relevant literature is. I am saying that we should recognize that more may be required on occasion to achieve neutrality. And yes, I recognize that "simply doing a Google search" is a bit of a caricature of the position stated above, but I'm trying to make the point that in practice, some human editorial judgment is always involved if we're going to do this well - it's not a mechanical measurement of which usage is most common. Let's recognize that editors are having to make judgment calls, and instead to make the process more mechanical, let's give editors guidance on making better judgments. EastTN (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The quotation from WP:NPOV above applies to descriptive article titles, where we are making one up, as the example makes clear. Furthermore, the specific concern with criticisms of drugs, like criticisms of capitalism (or communism), is that it tends to attract ranters on one side of an issue, who quote published rants on their side of the issue, and so make a bad article - not that the title itself is somehow biased.

This is a bad thing; but a limited bad thing. It is not a general principle; it's a warning against using titles which encourage POV forks. We may do well to include exactly that, with a cross-link - but not at the top. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as WP:NPOV has anything to say on the matter, it is that neutrality over contentious issues is important, especially with regard to descriptive titles. With the names of entities and locations, neutrality is not so heavily stressed, which is inline with other policy guidance which has given a significant role to the self-identifying name of an entity. As has been said, neither google hit-counting or "neutrality" are always the golden bullet, because in some instances two names will exist with almost equal usage, one will be favoured by group A, and another by group B. Which is the neutral choice? In such circumstances, it is common sense to consider following the usage of the entity the name actually refers to, or of the group who actually live in the location in question. And this has been the practice of many editors. This also avoids identifying a group by a name they find offensive, or identifying a city or geographical feature by a name that seems to take sides in a territorial dispute. The Dalits v Untouchables example is resonant here. EASTTN's Pro-Choice v Pro-Abortion, Pro-Life v Anti-Abortion example is a similar instance where number-crunching is unlikely to produce as stable or neutral a solution as going with the titles the groups use to identify themselves. Xandar 03:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the name the entity calls itself is necessarily the more neutral choice. It might be... but it might not be. Entities often call themselves by names that display a distict POV. I am reminded of the old saw... "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, Roman nor an empire".

That said... we do need to accept the fact that sometimes there simply is no "neutral" name for something... situations where someone is going to be offended no matter what name we choose as the title of our article. Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that is correct. What ever the entity calls itself has to be given due consideration, but not undue consideration, particularly if there are more numerous, more reliable sources supporting a different article title. My view is that contentious article titles can only be arrived at if all the sources are lined up and ranked in terms of reliablity & depth of coverage to reach a point where the it can be established that a clear choice of name has emerged, e.g. Jack the Ripper. This approach is more mechanical in methodology, but the closer we stick to the sources cited in the article, the better the fit for the title, and it will be easier to draft a set of rules along these lines, rather than a more judgemental apporach that is not based on external validation.
Note that this does not apply to nor can it work with topics that are not notable, and which are not the subject of a broad range of sources. Often disagreement over an articles title is associated with lack of notability, but we should set that issue aside for now. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What the entity calls itself (unless - as usual - it is also what everybody else calls it) is not the most neutral choice. It reflects the point of view of the organization - often, indeed, the point of view of a minority who claim to be the organization.

This is an argument made only by the pedlars of points of view - like the repetitive Xandar. They are not useful contributors to Misplaced Pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification

Gavin... Thank you... you just hit the nail on the head as far as the entire "self-identification" debate goes... I think you are correct in saying: "What ever the entity calls itself has to be given due consideration, but not undue consideration". What we have been debating (repeatedly) for the last several months is what constitutes due vs. undue consideration... we have strong disagreement as to where to draw the line between "due consideration" and "undue consideration".

It may be that this is not a line we can draw in a policy... After all, to some extent the line will be different for each article, since the specific circumstances of each article are unique. Blueboar (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be given exactly as much consideration as speakers of English generally give it. Often this is a great deal, but if so, it is reflected in usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But that still leaves situations in which there is no clear usage. If there are two or three names that are used essentially equally by the english language sources... one of which is the name used by the entity itself... should we consider that bit of information when determining the title of the article? Is considering this fact "due consideration" or "undue consideration"? I suspect that the answer to that question may be different from article to article. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have disagreed with what I said. If there are two or three equally common names, one or two of which are self-identifiers, then English gives some weight to the one or two. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No I haven't disagreed... I am asking in order to refine what you said. So now we get to the final question... how much weight? Blueboar (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No more than WP:UE would allow, which is often considerable. If there are special cases where self-identification deserves and has received independent weight, I have no idea what they are; I have seen none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PMA... WP:UE does not really apply to what I am asking about. If sources (all in english) are relatively evenly split between calling something X or Y (both being english names or terms)... How much weight should the fact that the entity itself self-identifies (also in english) as X be given? Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No additional weight whatsoever, in your hypothetical case (in which UE applies equally on both sides). If the sources are evenly split, go to our other considerations: Which is shortest? Which is easiest to link to? Which will readers expect, given what we have called other articles? and so on. If those do not decide, flip a coin. But by that time we are dealing with a case with so many hypothetical conditions that no instances have ever come up or are likely to come up; when policy need not speak, it should be silent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have to state a weight. We just have to say that it is one of the considerations that editors can/should take into account when coming to a consensus. However I think it should be listed along with other relevant considerations, rather than just leaving a blank. Xandar 02:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

PMA's reference to UE makes intuitive sense to me, although I can't explain it.

Perhaps this will help: It usually takes a lot to get a modern English source to not use a self-identifying name. If the sources are actively rejecting a self-identifying name, then on what scholarly basis to we give it special attention? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What is PMA's reference? Can anyone cite this or provide a link to what this means? Apologies, but I have lost the thread's meaning.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following the relevance of WP:UE either - it seems to be talking about how to bring in a non-English term when no English common name is available.

As for the rest, I do think we may be asymptotically approaching a consensus. Thinking of the situation where there is no one clear usage, I strongly agree with the formulation that "hat ever the entity calls itself has to be given due consideration, but not undue consideration", and the formulation that "sometimes there simply is no "neutral" name for something." I also agree that the answer to the question will likely vary from article to article, which makes me think that we can't state a particular weight that will apply in all cases). As for self-identification, this suggests to me that editors should consider it, but not to the exclusion of considering other usages and the neutrality of the resulting article title - and certainly not to the extent of giving special privilege to the entity's own particular point of view. When no name is completely neutral, editors should try to choose a title that is as neutral as is reasonably possible (consistent with recognizability, precision, ease of finding the article, etc.). EastTN (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors should not, and do not, consider self-identification at all; POV-pushers usually consider nothing else; the proper course of action is to ban them at sight - and thus put an end to the appalling claim that any grouplet has a right to control what other people call them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that is too extreme. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Then propose a middle view; I stand by the last clause, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was a middle view. Self identification can be one of many secondary things that might be considered when there isn't a common name identifiable in the sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. It is too extreme to say that an editor should never consider self-identification, and in my opinion bordering on a personal attack to imply that only "POV-pushers" would consider what an entity calls itself. (I am on record as saying that I do at least think about what the subject of an article chooses to call itself). It may be a mistake to consider it (I've certainly been mistaken about other things), but it's going too far to suggest that it cannot be anything other than intentional misbehavior. I would argue that the middle ground consists of 1) limiting the discussion to situations where there is no identifiable common name; 2) limiting it to being only one factor among many that may be considered; and 3) making it clear that self-identification cannot be used if it results in a non-neutral article title.EastTN (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no middle view between "may" and "must not".

You're looking for an away goals rule: if both names are even on points, give the self-identification name additional weight. Though I don't particularly like it, there is nothing inherently wrong with adopting an away goals rule. But the "give the self-identification name additional weight" clause is a violation of our neutral point of view policy. This is not acceptable. Hesperian 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The text Blueboar referred to never suggested that self-identification should be privileged with "additional weight." It simply said that editors could consider whether it made sense, in that particular case where there is no obvious common name for the topic, for a group's self-identification to be used in the title. We're not talking about a "'give the self-identification name additional weight' clause".EastTN (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, saying one can consider the fact of self-identification in reaching a consensus does not imply a result... it can result in two equal outcomes... 1) deciding to use the self-identified name... or 2) deciding NOT to use it. Either could occur depending on all the other things being discussed. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Either outcome is fine as long as it is for the right reason(s). In both cases, "because it is what the entity calls itself" is the wrong reason. Hesperian 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If all you want to say is that the self-identification name has just as much right to consideration as every other candidate name, then that is fine with me. I propose the following wording:

""

Hesperian 00:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

All flipness aside, that's exactly what I have have said - that it should be considered on the same basis as every other usage. I have also argued (and still believe) that, in dealing with the case where there is no single recognized "common name" for a subject, less experienced editors could benefit from a bit more guidance than:

""

If we can get past this idea that we're somehow trying to grant organizations the right to pick the title for their own Misplaced Pages articles, I still think it would be useful to discuss what that additional guidance might look like. EastTN (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. However, I'd also like to point out that this policy fails utterly to state that titles that start with the letter H should not be rejected out of hand but should be considered on the same grounds as every other candidate name. I think, in dealing with the case where there is no single recognized "common name" for a subject, less experienced editors could benefit from a bit of guidance here.

The above is only flippant if you can articulate how the two cases differ.

Hesperian 01:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The two cases differ in one very important and significant way... people get into lots of arguments about "but this is what the group calls itself" (self identification) where they don't get into aguments about "but it begins with the letter H". So it is helpful to say something about where and when self-identification can be considered, while there is no need to say something about where the letter H can be considered. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Now you've moved the goalposts again. Let me summarise:

1. You guys say "Sometimes the self-identification name should be used as the title". I say "Yes, often."
2. You guys say "Sometimes the fact that a name is a self-identification name should be taken into account when choosing a title." I say "No, never."

Every time I agree with 1., you proceed as though I have agreed with 2. Every time I disagree with 2., you proceed as though I have disagreed with 1. It is really starting to piss me off. Can you guys please figure out which of these two assertions you are proposing to insert in the policy, and then stay on topic. Hesperian 01:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: If the independent sources are truly equally divided, with exactly half calling the organization X, and half calling the organization Y, you would never consider self-identification as even a tie-breaker, correct?

Then what would you use to make a decision? We cannot, as a purely practical matter, place the article under both titles, and arbitrary solutions, such as flipping a coin, have never enjoyed support on Misplaced Pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can do no better than quote PMA above:

No additional weight whatsoever.... If the sources are evenly split, go to our other considerations: Which is shortest? Which is easiest to link to? Which will readers expect, given what we have called other articles? and so on. If those do not decide, flip a coin. But by that time we are dealing with a case with so many hypothetical conditions that no instances have ever come up or are likely to come up; when policy need not speak, it should be silent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary solutions (flipping a coin, number of letters in the name) are routinely and firmly rejected by the community. "Easiest to link to" is supposedly (as far as anyone can make out, which perhaps isn't very far) what has been intended by the long-standing, if opaque, "favors readers over editors" clause, and thus that criteria has been rejected by the community. That leaves you with "consistent with what we called other articles" as the only possible tiebreaker.

If this point is unhelpful (as it will be in a significant proportion of disputes), then is there anything else that (1) you would consider and (2) hasn't been previously rejcted by the community? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You've ignored PMA's "Which is shortest", a concise paraphasing of our "conciseness" criterion. And you need to read Misplaced Pages:Article titles#Deciding an article title again: see if you can find the phrase "and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles". I believe coin-flipping was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion by PMA, intended to suggest what is stated explicitly in the next sentence: "by that time we are dealing with a case with so many hypothetical conditions that no instances have ever come up or are likely to come up".

Frankly, I think the notion that we need self-identification because we won't be able to make decisions without it, is the weakest argument that has been put forward in this discussion. There are an abundance of criteria on the policy page; if no consensus emerges from them, adding yet another criterion is going to make it harder to find consensus, not easier. And even if it did make it easier, I'd still be opposed, because I'm opposed to a policy that makes it really, really easy to arrive at the wrong decision. Hesperian 04:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WhatamI hasn't ignored conciseness; he disagrees with it, as he disagrees with much of this policy. His claims of community consensus require citation; discussions on this page are not the voice of the community, and there has been no such consensus, even here. Indeed, as Hesperian points out, many of these "rejected" points are part of this policy page - and, more importantly, of daily discussions on move requests. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Aye, she certainly does disagree with "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors," and precisely because she favors reasonable concision (but not wholesale abbreviations) and appropriate precision, even if this might occasionally and slightly favor "editors over readers" -- or, far more likely, give them equal consideration -- assuming that this is what this opaque phrase is supposed to address, which nobody seems to know. Despite my repeated questions, nobody has ever produced an explanation for this verbiage that wasn't promptly contradicted by someone else, but several people seem determined to keep this meaningless and/or confusing text in the policy, perhaps because it sounds so high-minded and poetical, rather than providing any practical or necessary advice to editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And so we reach yet another impass, this time with three view points instead of two...

1. self-identification should be a major criteria, always to be considered even when there is another name that is more common.
2. self-identificication should never, ever be considered under any circumstances.
3. self-identification should be considered a legitimate secondary tie breaker... along side many other tie breaking considerations.

Have I stated the view points correctly? Is it likely that anyone will change their view? If not, I don't see any way to resolve this impass without broader community involvement. Perhaps it is time to toss these three options to the wider community and do another RfC. Any objections? Blueboar (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone actually support #1 (self-identification is more important than widespread common use by English sources)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was Xander's original position... although, to be fair, he seems to have backed off from that. It may still be Storm Riders position (he/she hasn't commented recently so I am not sure if his/her position has changed)Blueboar (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be constant confusion between "self-identification should never be considered when choosing a name" and "the self-identification name should never be chosen", care need to be taken in phrasing an RfC to avoid conflating the former with the latter. Hesperian 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got that... your position is the former. You object to the consideration, not the use.Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So is mine. Very often, for example, there is only one name for an organization (of any frequency), which must therefore be both common usage and self-identification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Using PMA's example... everyone would agree on the name... those who support #1 would choose the name because it was the self-ID, while both position #2 and position #3 would choose it because it was the common name. Both 2 and 3 agree with what happens when there is only one name of any frequency ... but they differ over what we can and should consider when there are two or more names that have equal frequency in the sources (one of which is the self ID name). Am I correct that you do not think we should consider self-identification even in that situation... as a tie breaker? Blueboar (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Going back to my earlier post about "What ever the entity calls itself has to be given due consideration, but not undue consideration", I think that this needs a major qualification. This is what goes on in the real world, but in the context of Misplaced Pages, editors are not free to create article titles that can't beverfied by reliable, third party sources:

1. self-identification should not be considered, whether or not there is another name that is more common. Although self-identification is the source of information that most secondary and tertiary sources get their information from, from a Misplaced Pages standpoint the entity is a primary source, and as such does is not an independent source of information;
2. self-identificication should never be considered in isolation, because it is a primary source , and should never be considered in the absence of signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources. If there are no sources that address the entity directly and in detail, chances are that it is not notable at this time;
3. self-identification based on the primary source and should not be considered a legitimate tiebreaker. In the real world, identities can change quickly, but because of splits and schisms, there is not always a one-one relationship between the old and the new identity. Reliable secondary sources are required to verify that the correct title is being used to identify the correct entity.

In short, secondary sources must be used to confirm identity in every case, or else we failing to make proper identity checks using external validation. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, I agree with what you just said... but as I see it, in the "tie breaker" senario all your concerns are dealt with... when we consider self-identification in that senario we are not considering the name in isolation. The self-identification is being considered due to signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The situation assumes that we have looked at the reliable sources, and found that there is equal significant coverage between two or more names. We have reliable secondary sources to verify that the correct title is being used to identify the correct entity. What we don't have is a clear majority of secondary sources agreeing on any one name. In that senario, I think it is reasonable to include self-identification as one of many "things to consider" that will help us choose between the names that are used in reliable secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

On that I disagree, and perhaps an example would be useful to illustrate the points I have made. In many secondary sources the terms "Persian" and "Farsi" are often used to describe the Persian language, but Persian is not the term used by the speakers of the language itself. Reliable secondary sources show term "Persian" and "Farsi" both have the same root (Greek Pérsis), which is why the English nomenclature is "Persian". This might be a special case, but I would say this is an example of where reliable secondary sources, even if they are in the minority, have sufficient weight to over rule self-identification. This example shows to me that, in theory at least, secondary sources should be used to confirm an article's title in every case. I am open to counter arguements, but I feel this is a clear and unambigious starting point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my position... To adapt your example, let us invent a language... and assume that out of a total of 100,000 reliable secondary sources, 49,000 use "term X" and 48,000 use "term Y" and 1,000 use "term Z". We can rule out "term Z" since it is used by a distinct minority of sources. WP:COMMONNAME tells us to use either "term X" or "term Y", but since they are used essentially equally, it does not tell us which to use.

In that situation we need to look at other considerations, we need to ask further questions... for example: "Is one term sholarly usage while the other is more colloquial?" "Is usage determined by the age of the source (with more modern sources using one term and older sources using the other)?" These are just a few of the many questions that need to be asked... and what questions are asked will be slightly different from article to article ... but one of these many questions should be: "Is one of these terms what speakers of the language use"? None of these questions inherantly carries more weight than any other. It is the over all weight, taking all the answers together, that determines which term should be used for the article title. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And in the "Persian"/"Farsi" example, we're not talking about two English names for the same subject - we're talking about an English term and a transliterated Persian term. While the term is used in some linguistic literature, it isn't used frequently enough by English speakers to have become a common English name. The real problem occurs when there are multiple terms in the English language for a single topic, none of which is clearly the "common name" for it.EastTN (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• And I think the tie-breaker scenario is a fantasy; I have never seen an example of an absolute tie between other considerations, much less one where self-identification was thrown into the scale and tipped it. This page should not invent procedures which the community does not use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've seen a few situations in which the balance was so close that it might as well have been an absolute tie, although I can't remember one offhand for which self-identification (an issue that rarely affects my main subjects) would have been relevant. For example, is it "lymphoblastic leukemia" or "lymphocytic leukemia"? It's the same thing, and just totting up the number of hits on your favorite web search engine won't tell you the subtle difference (the choice of terms indicates the age of the patients the source is most accustomed to dealing with). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Even if it is a fantasy, it might be useful guidance to rule out the use of self-ID in non-fantasy cases by saying something like "Self-ID should be used only as a last resort, i.e. in cases where two or more names are judged to be equally valid when all other factors are taken into consideration." —Codrdan (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Going back to Blueboar's three choices . . .

1. self-identification should be a major criteria, always to be considered even when there is another name that is more common.
2. self-identification should never, ever be considered under any circumstances.
3. self-identification should be considered a legitimate secondary tie breaker... along side many other tie breaking considerations

. . . I would argue that neither #1 nor #2 is ultimately consistent with the current practice of most editors or with a neutral point of view. Editors do not use self-identification to trump well-established common names (nor do I believe they should). Where there isn't a well-established common name, editors do discuss what an entity calls itself as they choose article titles - but even in that case, they do not always end up basing an article title on it (again, even in that case I don't think that self-identification should always be the deciding factor). Beyond inconsistency with how editors actually behave, the first two options share a common fundamental flaw - they both single out a particular viewpoint for special treatment (privileging it in the one case, and excluding it in the other). If there is no common name, then editors have to base article titles on other, secondary factors. In practice, they look to a number of things. Which usages are most common, even if none of them rises to the level of a "common name"? What title would most clearly describe the subject? What does the entity call itself? What term or terms do the highest-quality, most encyclopedic sources use? Which terminology is most neutral? Which search terms are users most likely to use? All of these are legitimate considerations, and the correct answer will vary from situation from situation (that's why we have human editors, instead of some sort of "article titling bot"). I believe that the guidance would be more useful and more consistent with actual practice if we used two or three sentences to describe option 3 and lay out some of the more common/important secondary considerations editors may need to consider when there is no clear common name for the subject of an article. EastTN (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I oppose any mention of option 3, as contrary to WP:NPOV. It is not legitimate under any circumstances, and those who insist on mentioning it are proposing language applicable only once in a blue moon, even under its own terms, wrong then, and predictably and profoundly abusable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pmanderson in this regard. In answer to EastTN, clearly "Farsi" is the most commonly used, and most commonly cited. Yet it is the quality of the sources that provide knockout evidence that topic should be refered to as Persian language. I don't think you are contradicting each other, but clearly we have not reached the point where we can agree on what is consitutes knockout evidence of what decides an article nameyet. My view is that it is the reliablity and quality (in terms of significant coverage) of a source that matters particularly where the source provides a defintion to support the article title. Usually such a definition is obtained from the entity itself (i.e. self-definition), but where a reliable secondary source defines a topic better than self-indntiication does, that is the best source of all because it is independent of the entity.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have no problems with the idea that "quality of sources" is an important part of a consensus discussion. Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. In a perfect world (which this isn't), we wouldn't bother with conciseness, precision, consistency, etc. We would simply follow usage in reliable sources. If multiple names are in usage in reliable sources, we would examine usage more deeply. There is a right way and a wrong way to do that.

The wrong way is to associate the various names with points of view, and then choose a point of view to endorse—that would be a violation of our commitment to neutrality, and that is precisely what the self-identification proposal would have us do.

The right way is to associate the various names with shared editorial values. What name is used by sources that, like us, value neutrality? What name is used by sources that, like us, are there to inform and educate, not merely to titillate and entertain? What name is used by sources that are written for a broad audience rather than the specialists in a tiny subfield? Hesperian 01:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree... where I think we disagree is whether any of this conflicts with asking "what do the natives call it?" as one of many questions we should ask when reaching a consensus on what to title an article. I don't think there is a conflict. Blueboar (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account "what the natives call it" equals "associating the various names with points of view, and then choosing a point of view to endorse". Hesperian 03:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree we have to steer well clear of this approach. For me the rule for deciding what an article title should be is closely aligned with WP:GNG:

Recognizable –If an article title has been the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the entity, it is presumed to have been recognized by the world at large as being the article title for that particular topic.

Wording along these lines needs to to into the section Deciding an article title, as the wording provides little useful guidance at the moment. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think closer to what we mean is "If an entity has received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources under a particular name, it is presumed that that name will be a recognizable title for the article." (It's not what the world at large has recognized - but what our readers will recognize. And there's no reason to say the title - it is likely not to be unique in this respect.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should we discount reliable sources that fail to be independent of the subject? --Kotniski (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Independent sourcing is an important indicator that a topic is not a neologism. For example, in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination) the decision to redirect the article was made because the topic had no independent sources as all the published journals came from commentators who were affiliated with the topic of Socionomics. In this case, the notability of topic was disputed, in which case so too was the article title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's for notability; but once something is notable, aren't all sources equal as far as recognizability of the name is concerned? I'm thinking of a hypothetical situation where an organization is much discussed in non-English sources, but the only English translations of its name are on its own website and in one other source - does that mean the website is discounted? A kind of anti-self-identification rule? --Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability's relationship with article titles is similar to the Chicken or the egg causality dilemma; if an article topic is notable, then its likely that its title is recognised by reliable secondary sources, and vice-versa. If a topic is notable, but its title is not recognised, then you have a situation which could give rise to a content fork because reliable secondary sources are better than self-indentification from the primary source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There's an example of this problem at Dunning–Kruger effect: The phenomenon that Dunning and Kruger identified has received a lot of attention, but they didn't name their discovery after themselves -- in fact, they didn't really name it anything during the initial burst of media attention, which is not an uncommon thing in that field. An editor perpetually insists that the now-common eponym is a neologism and original research, because Misplaced Pages used the (trivially predictable) eponym before it was adopted widely. I don't, however, think that there's any risk of a content fork arising as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure this is entirely correct and I have posted my concens about this issue on the article's talk page. There is a problem with such editorial disuputes: it is impossible to prove that a topic is neologism, in the same way that it is impossible to prove that a topic is not notable.
My view is that the article Dunning–Kruger effect is thinly sourced, and the fact that is being discussed in isolation from almost identical topics such as Groupthink or Illusory superiority is not helping. Perhaps if it goes to mediation, these issues will be resolved to everyone satisfaction.
I am not saying that my esteemed colleague WhatamIdoing is wrong in his assessment, but I think this is a case where there are insufficient sources to demonstrate that the term "Dunning–Kruger effect" is a title used by the world at large for the phenomena it describes. In a case like this, it is important not to compartmentalise a topic if there are reliable secondary sources that suggest that alternative, more widely cited terms are in use and are more generally accepted. This is another reason why self-indentification should be given due consideration, but not undue consideration. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples

I think that the elephant in the room is the debate over the naming of the Roman Catholic Church from which this recent debate has its seeds. In the case of the Catholic Church how does one assess which secondary sources are independant? Another two article titles, the Republic of Ireland and the city of Derry, over which usage is split and both article would probably end up at their alternative names if self-identification was given more weight. BTW the Republic of Ireland is under an Arbcom decision and a poll on the name to be used. -- PBS (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Derry, the long-standing solution there is to call the county Londonderry and the city Derry. That solution keeps both peace and balance and has a grounding in the history of the place names in Ireland (that I won't go into here), common names, "self-identification" and manitaning NPOV across multiple interrelated related topics.

The result of the Ireland/Republic of Ireland poll was to maintain the status quo (island at Ireland, state at Republic of Ireland) for another two years. The questions around that also demonstrate that there are many factors to be considered besides simply a legal name for an entity when considering disambiguation, primary topics, and the appropriate teamtment of topics. -- RA (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Its a solution, but it needs to backed up by some form of external validation that can withstand a formal challenge. Although I participated in the Ireland/Republic of Ireland poll, I think polls are a wholly inappropriate method of determining names, because there will be a lingering suspicion that voting will have been conducted along partisan lines, rather than in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A poll is not the best way to resolve things - neither is trowing tables and chair at each other, which is all that was happening. Both of the choices (Ireland/Republic of Ireland or Derry/Londonderry) are externally valid and supportable by policy and guidelines. It is not only the passions involved, but more cricually the mutliplicity of considerations when it comes to topics such as these, that make naming these articles less than clear-cut.

The answer is illusive because the question is difficult. That is the nature of these topics. The solution to that of course is not to simply ammend policy and guidelines to restrict the question to only one answer.

With particular reference to Derry/Londonderry, that solution has survived challenge and consensus quite amicably for six years now. It would be unfortunate for someone on this talk page to "legistlate" poorly (whilst of course believing that they were doing right) only to cause havoc elsewhere. Questions like these need to be resolved appropriately with respect to the subject matter being discussed. This page cannot make those calls because it does not know the subject matter. -- RA (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This leads me back to something I said earlier... each article is unique... so the solution to one title dispute will not work if applied to another title dispute (and may even make the dispute worse).

Perhaps the solution to this endless debate is to simply say "If an examination of the sources does not indicate a clear common name, editors should title the article through consensus" and leave it at that. In other words, perhaps we need to intentionally remain silent on what things should or should not be considered when attempting to reach a consensus. As far as this relates to "self-identification", don't explicitly say that "self-identification" should be considered, but don't explicitly say it shouldn't be considerd either. Let those who are trying to reach a consensus determine what should and should not be discussed. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what we say at the moment. I'm quite happy with it, although I think even that is too much - commonness of name is only one of the factors we consider (as the first section of the policy makes clear), so it's wrong to say "first try to find the commonest name, and if that fails consider other things".--Kotniski (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you phrase it that way, I agree with you... that phrasing implies that a simple majority wins over other important criteria, and that is not what this policy intends. If, on the other hand you phrase it as: "first see if there is an obvious common name that is used by reliable english language secondary sources, if so use that, and if not consider other things" it becomes much clearer, and in line with what we intend. I do think that WP:COMMONNAME carries more weight than the other criteria (it's why we list it first)... but the useage must be fairly obvious. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that a simple majority wins over other important criteria, and the lead example in this context is article on Persian language being used in preference to the more commonly used term Farsi on the strength of coverage from reliable secondary sources. If any article title dispute would go mediation, it would not be settled on the basis of a majority, but on the strength of external sourcing. How else could title disputes ever be settled if editors knew that external validation could be always be overuled by a majority? Once we abondon sourcing in favour of arbitary majority, we will be creating a set of rules based on subjective importance, rather than on verifiable evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the Farsi example is flawed, since it involves English v foreign language usage, very few of the naming disputes under discussion can be solved in the way Gavin Collins suggests. What he seems to be stating is that if there isn't a clear common name, find a clear common-name in reliable sources. In most cases this is going round in circles. We are talking about areas where there is no clear referenced name. There also seems to be misunderstanding regarding NPOV. Addressing a person by its chosen name is not POV. This has been made clear in WP policy for at least the past five years. I can direct people to the references if they wish. It is also clear that Misplaced Pages editors do use self-identification as a criteria in naming. Those who now wish to dictate a doctrinaire ban on this are the ones trying to impose new policy from above. In the Derry - Londonderry dispute "Derry" was chosen for the town partly because that was the name the town had chosen to self-identify by, while "Londonderry" is used for the county because that is the name the County has decided itself to use. We do the same with places like Canton, China, in the policy on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and as a factor in the resolution of the Macedonia dispute. So the simple thing policy should continue to do is follow what actually happens on WP, and state that self-identification is a factor to be considered now matter how certain individuals dislike it. Xandar 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do provide references to back your assertion that "Addressing a person by its chosen name is not POV. This has been made clear in WP policy for at least the past five years." Not that it is particularly relevant, since consensus can change. Hesperian 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Addressing a person by its chosen name is not POV". Perhaps... but we are not addressing a person... We are determining a title for an article. And titling an article because a person or group prefers that name can be considered POV. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the POV issue, but the title of an article refers to the article's subject. Maybe that's what Xandar meant, in which case the real question is whether or not his "WP policy for at least the past five years" references back up his claim. —Codrdan (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The main naming convention dealing with the issue of self-identification was the Misplaced Pages:Naming Conflict page, stable from 2005 to 2009. It was "merged" into this page last year, which is how this argument has arisen. The page was deferred to from this page and others for rationale and specifics of the common name policy, and clearly stresses the NPOV nature of self-identifying names. Misplaced Pages Manual of Style also advocates the use of self-identifying names. This specific naming convention is based on self-identification. All of this is long standing, and unchallenged until recently. Xandar 02:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You source for the assertion that "Addressing a person by its chosen name is not POV. This has been made clear in WP policy for at least the past five years" is a guideline that didn't exist five years ago, and doesn't state that addressing a person by its chosen name is not POV? <shakes head> You know, we actually make progress here when you are not around. Hesperian 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, what would you have done with The Artist Formerly Known As Prince ten years ago? The sources contrived not to use a name, in a sort of "he who must not be named" way, and his self-identification was useless (images can't be put in a URL). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think WhatamIdoing example perfectly illustrates the trap that self-identicaton can lead to - sometimes the primary source gets it wrong. Earlier I made the point that where self-identification has changed, this policy needs to say that editors should examine the secondary sources on the subject to ensure the correct term is being used, and to confirm that the name change has been accepted by the world at large. In short, multiple secondary sources are always better than one primary source.
In answer to Xandar's comments about the Persian language controversy, I think dismising it as a foreign language issue is missing the point: Persian and Farsi share the same root, so they are essentially the same term. There may be a shift in usage, by which I mean Farsi may well become the accepted term in the future, but there needs to be evidence to show that this shift has occured.
In order to stop disputes going around in circles, we must evaluate the evidence from secondary sources in order to make a reasoned judgement, as is done in mediation cases. We can write rules based on evidence (as oposed to personal opinion), and I think Xandar has shown us the way forward when he writes "if there isn't a clear common name, find a clear common-name in reliable sources". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that redundant? After all, the only way to know that a name is common in the first place is through use in reliable sources... so it sounds like you are essentially saying "if there isn't a clear common name (as shown through use in reliable sources), find a clear common-name in reliable sources." Or are you making a distinction that I am not seeing? Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say that if there isn't a clear common name (as shown through use by the entity itself and in reliable sources), find a clear common-name in reliable sources. Give the primary source due consideration, but not undue consideration. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah... interesting... I had not considered the primary/secondary nature of the sources before. I will have to think about that. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thinking on this a bit more... the primary/secondary issue is moot... as we are assuming that there are reliable secondary sources that support the self-identification as well as reliable secondary sources that support any other name we are considering. So it really comes down to a choice between secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right; we have to examine our sources more closely, and possibly accept some and reject others. Since we couldn't get a clear-cut answer to the question "What name do reliable sources use?", we dig deeper and ask "What name is favoured by the most reputable, the most reliably neutral, the most accurate sources?" Often when there is a naming dispute, the more reputable sources will favour the self-identification name, in which case the self-identification name should be used here. But in cases where the more reputable sources do not use the self-identification name, nor should we. Hesperian 23:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with that is a) identifying the "more reliable sources" and then b) estimating the usage in same sources once these had been selected. These processes are liable to produce more argument not less, and may still not resolve into a clear advantage for any name. This is not what editors actually do anyhow. The use of self-identification as a factor in name choices is quite widespread, and there is no reason for a dramatic change of policy as would be required to rule this out. It should therefore continue to be documented in this policy page. A major change of policy, such as forbidding use of self-identification in naming would require a very wide-spread consultation across Misplaced Pages, since the vast majority of editors most concerned, the ones writing the relevant articles are not here. Xandar 01:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"These processes are liable to produce more argument not less" So be it. As I said above, I'm opposed to a policy that makes it really easy to come to the wrong decision.

I dispute Xandar's claim that this would be a major policy change, and also that claim that editors use self-identification; but I'm happy to see an RfC on this, so long as it isn't written by Xandar, whose previous RfCs were hideously biased. Hesperian 01:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A few things may be helpful for the RfC:

• The language Xandar quotes is a few sentences of a much longer guideline, most of which had nothing to do with self-identification.
• It was written by a single editor, ChrisO, who happens to have strong feelings about the name of the Republic of Macedonia.
• It was accepted as a guideline after very little discussion, none of which addressed self-identification, either way. Most of the guideline was uncontroversial guidance on other subjects, and most of its content is still, in substance, on this page and the naming conventions.
• The key phrase of the self-identification section of the guideline is quoted only in these references in Misplaced Pages. Some of them are supporting some article title now rejected (Kyiv, Myanmar, Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, Macedonia - for the Republic), objecting to some phrasing now accepted (mentioning Malvinas in the first sentence of Falkland Islands, using Bollywood - I still don't understand what alternative was being pushed), or otherwise against consensus. The others are all Xandar's personal noise about the phrase being consensus, and what everybody does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Xandar, your argument that "self-identification as a factor in name choices is quite widespread" has some merit in it, because usually secondary sources take their lead from the entity itself (i.e. the primary source), and so secondary sources usually confirm that self-identification is correct. In this case, primary and secondary sources are congruent, but in such a case, there is little likelyhood of there being an editorial dispute.
However, this is not support giving undue weight to self-indentification where there is a dispute. Focusing on the primary source as a means of selecting an article's title is not supported by any of Misplaced Pages's content policies, all of which are primarily based on what relaible secondary sources say about a particular topic. In short, over-reliance on self-identification is just not supported by any content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "over-reliance" on self-identification means. What is being argued for here is that it be listed as a factor for consideration. As I have said WP:NamingConflict, the Manual of Style and other policy guidance have been strongly in support of self-identification as a factor in naming. This goes beyond what has been suggested as a compromise solution here. Articles like Republic of China also go beyond the suggested wording since self-identification is clearly the primary factor used by editors OVER and above, common name. Attempting to ban the use of self-identification even as a factor in naming decisions would be a very new and major change of policy, and as far as I can see not one driven by either actual WP practice or even by any pressing problems arising out of the use of self-identification in article naming. Xandar 01:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Over-reliance" on self-identification in this context means that the primary source (the entity itself) is being used as the source of information, rather than secondary sources. Since WP:V says that "articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", it seems to be that giving priority to primary sources goes against this prinicple.
A good example of this is the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China which is the offical name, but there is no dispute about its article name which is widely used in secondary sources, i.e. Hong Kong. Unlike the Hong Kong, the names recognised by reliable secondary source for those of Republic of China and the Republic of Ireland may be in transition (and hence are disputed). At some point, a consensus may emerge, but it will be based on secondary, rather than primary sources.
The main problem with relying on self-identification as I see it is that the primary source is not indepedent. In this context, independence means that a source is free from pressures associated with a strong connection to the subject matter (such as, but not limited to family relationships, close political affiliation, business dealings or other benefical interest) that may compromise, or can reasonably be expected to compromise, the sources reputation for reliablity.
In short, article titles should be should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy and independence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That is probably the most coherant argument that I have read so far. Thank you Gavin. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A summary of the debate with respect to Ireland/Republic of Ireland:

With repsect to Republic of Ireland, the crucial aspect to that debate was the existance of another entity of the same name, Ireland. If that entity did not exist or if the two coincided then there the article on the state would simply be at Ireland. Since another entity called Ireland does exist and the two "Irelands" do no co-incide, some form of dabbing is be required. Hence the problem.

In deciding how to dab, it was considered by some that Ireland formed a primary topic. If so, so Ireland would not be a straight dab page and the article on the state would have to be dabbed somehow. The question then was how to dab the article on the state: Ireland (state) (not Ireland (country) for specific reasons) or Republic of Ireland. These were the two most viable options and reflected guidelines on how to dab: either using a distinguishing word or using an alternative common name. It was considered by some that dabbing by an alternative common name (Republic of Ireland) would be superior to dabbing by a partentesided word. That choice sarcrificed the "self-identification" name in favour of not using a parenthesised word.

(The situation is analogous with China/People's Republic of China/Taiwan/Republic of China. In some ways it is also analogous to Korea/South Korea/North Korea.)

A defining consideration throughout the debate was the many participants so vehimently resented the state being at any title other than it's official name. Many editors considered that a slight against the state (and consequently the nation). The counter argument was that there was no such slight and that Republic of Ireland is commonly used to distinguish one entity from the other in secondary sources. (That particular aspect of the debate was coloured by some "anti-ROI" editors arguing that the term was a slight against the nation from historically weak positions e.g. that the term Republic of Ireland was a "British impostion" whereas in fact it was introduced by the Irish government in declaring the state to be a republic in 1949, something that was resented by the British.)

The result of the vote of 234 ballots was 43% in favour of the state being at Ireland (state) and 54% in favour of the state being at Republic of Ireland. 7 ballots were "wasted" (a concept of the voting system used). -- RA (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in the history of the Chinese article titles - it seems not to be an entirely analogous situation, since the People's Republic is obviously the primary topic for the term "China", and that's the kind of name we would ordinarily be using for a country (we don't normally include "Republic of" etc. unless there's a real ambiguity involved). Was there some political/nationalist pressure against doing the obvious thing here? Is it worth revisiting?--Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Was there some political/nationalist pressure against doing the obvious thing here?" Not substantially. The "political/nationalist pressure" more typically came from "anti-ROI" participants as noted above.

Bear in mind that like Scotland and England, Ireland is a traditional country of the region and is still a hugely culturally and practically significant. History of Ireland, Culture of Ireland, Geography of Ireland, People of Ireland, Sport in Ireland, Christianity in Ireland, basically everything except Government of Ireland, points to the island being the primary topic. Pick up any general book on "Ireland" and it will almost invariably be about the island not the state. Instances where "Ireland" refers to the state only are a very limited subset (e.g. Economy of Ireland).

"Is it worth revisiting?" The matter is the subject of an ArbCom ruling the decision to be binding for two years. This is being clarified. -- RA (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was asking about China, not about Ireland.--Kotniski (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh ... no idea about China, but it looks the same. -- RA (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Both Chinese governments agree that "China" is a larger entity which includes the de facto territory of both states (they both claim to be its legitimate government). Furthermore, the history of China begins several centuries BC; the history of both states spans less than a century. Therefore distinguishing China from People's Republic of China and from Republic of China represnets a real difference, as well as minimizing the max of unhappiness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing about history applies to many countries I would have thought (they have a history which covers entities often very different from the modern state), but we still name the articles with the common short name of the country - as far as I can see the only reason we treat China differently is the claims of the respective governments, which ought to be ignored for naming purposes. Still, if it makes people happy... --Kotniski (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But China is almost unique in that two governments both claim to be the country. We should not agree with only one of them, and we cannot agree with both. What do we do about Cyprus, I wonder? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We should follow usage, right? No-one says "China" meaning the Republic of China. What governments claim should be irrelevant to us.--Kotniski (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but many people will, when the question comes up, say that Taiwan is in China, that Taipei is a Chinese city. It would be a Beijing POV to say that they're in the People's Republic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No-one says "China" meaning the Republic of China. Actually, there are a lot of sources that do so. It may not be the majority, but it is a significant minority. And older sources will do so almost exclusively (heck, back in the 50s and 60s "China" was represented in the UN by the ROC... so any UN documents of the time are referring to Tiwan when they say "China".) That said... I think PMA gets it right in the China case... Disambiguation is needed... Save China for geographic and historical articles... use the full governmental names when referring to the political entities. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

> two governments both claim to be the country

Do they really say that? And are you sure they mean it literally? Most governments just claim to be the sole legitimate rulers or representatives of a country. The name "China" is usually associated with the geographical region, the people, and thousands of years of history that include a whole series of governments. Obviously people use it as a shorthand for the ROC in modern political contexts, but the scope of WP is wider than that. —Codrdan (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that the reason we use Republic of China rather than the name in the sources - Taiwan - is that ROC is the self-identifying name of the entity. The same applies to Daluts rather than Untouchables. Once again I would draw people's attention to the fact that THIS discussion is about when there is no single clear name in the sources. GavinCollins seems to believe that no use of self-identification should be considered by editors. That, as I have said, would be a major policy change. Xandar 00:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the reason we have articles on Taiwan and the Republic of China is that they are different concepts; even geographically, they do not comprise the same territory. Exclude the de jure claims of the RoC, which extend further into India than the PRC does or has; still the Republic rules Quemoy, Matsu, and the Pescadores, not rationally part of an article on the island of Taiwan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The state we refer to as Republic of China is known in the sources and throughout the world chiefly as Taiwan, and secondarily as Chinese Taipei or Formosa. Xandar 01:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is already an article at Taiwan. Clearly "Taiwan" is a legitimate title for both an article about an island and an article about a state. Given that it is not possible to give two articles the same title, at least one must be disambiguated, either with a disambiguation term or by use of a more precise alternative title. Your assertion that "We use RoC because we value self-identification" is logically equivalent to the assertion that "if we didn't value self-identification then we wouldn't have used RoC." So tell me then, what titles would we have used if we didn't value self-identification? Personally, I'm inclined to think we would have used precisely the titles we are currently using. Hesperian 01:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

General Principles

Here is a suggested wording of the approach which might be useful to take forward:

Article titles should be should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy and independence.

The reasons for doing so originate from Misplaced Pages's content policies, which I have adopted to support this. NB: italics have been used where I have amended the original policy wording. I am putting these ideas out now so we can kick these ideas about.

1. WP:OR: To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that support the article title directly, and that directly support the article title as it is presented. An article title generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments.
2. WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to create an article title not explicitly supported by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to create an article title C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to create a new article title, which is original research.
3. WP:NPOV: A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing article titles with a neutral point of view. An article title should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes about a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view.
4. WP:V: An article title that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source supported by an inline citation in the body of the article itself. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the article title as presented. If no reliable third-party sources can be found in support of an article title , Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.

Forgive the choice of wording, but these ideas approximate the approach that I think would have to be adopted in a mediation case. Can anyone suggest improvements or a better approach? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, this is the right idea. I would say "should be based upon usage in reliable, third-party sources", to make it clear that we are not expecting to find a source that says "its most common name is X". I also think the second half is unnecessarily wordy; it might suffice to simply write "should be based upon usage in reliable sources". At the very least, I would eliminate "published", and replace "independence" with "neutrality". I'm not sure whether "accuracy" should be included here: verifiability not truth, and all that guff. Hesperian 10:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion conflicts with current practice, this policy and other policy considerations. See for example 'Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy.' in the section about descriptive titles. Dmcq (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of the problem here is that "current practice" conflicts with itself... there is no single "current practice". Different articles have used different practices. That's what makes working this policy so contentious. To resolve this, we need to focus on what best practice is... to guide us in explaining what future practice should be. We may not agree as to what is best practice, but at least thinking in those terms will put us in the right direction. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-article titles

Do we have the equivalent of this page that specifically addresses naming pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace? I haven't been able to find one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The closest we have is WP:Policies and guidelines#Content... However that does specify how to choose the title. So, no, we don't have an equivalent of this page specifically for entitling WP pages. The next question is... Is there really a need for one? Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so - common sense ought to suffice. (If there are any rules, WP:Project namespace might be a good place for them.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought it was needed... except for encountering an editor who (as far as I can make out) thinks that if a page is named "Wikiproject Foo/Guideline", it's magically an approved guideline, even if it contradicts the main guidelines, and the authors skipped the usual WP:Guideline#Proposals process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you proposing some kind of convention prohibiting the misleading use of "Guideline" and "Policy" in project space titles?--Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely a whole page would be overkill. Perhaps a single sentence at WP:POLICY would be sufficient. (I'm not even sure that's necessary, since nobody reads the directions anyway.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We do have Category:Names for categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Boa Sr.

What should we call a biographical article on s.o. named Boa Sr.? Should the period be kept? The "Sr." means "senior", and the person has no last name. kwami (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's just a shorthand for Senior then the title should be "Boa, Sr.", with all the punctuation. --Golbez (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Question... is the "senior" considered part of her name, or is it more of an honorific used because of her age (or to distingish her from, say, Boa Jr.)? If the latter, a better title might be Boa (Andamanese elder)... Then in the first paragraph you can establish that she was commonly referred to as "Boa Sr." and explain why. Just a thought. Blueboar (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Not sure how integrated into her name it was. Wasn't sure whether to retain periods in Dr(.), Sr(.), etc, as AFAIK not covered at MOS. kwami (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Product names - include manufacturer's name?

What are the general rules (if any) regarding whether an article should be called "Adobe Photoshop" or just "Photoshop"?

I see both styles a lot. There's "Microsoft Windows", but just "Windows 7", not "Microsoft Windows 7". There's "Sony Vegas", but just "VAIO", not "Sony VAIO".

If there are any rules, could they please be included in this article. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. But some recent CfD discussions got me thinking that we probably need something in the naming conventions to cover brands. Not convinced that this is needed here, but it may be in Misplaced Pages:Category names. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The "rule" that applies is WP:COMMONNAME... ie if most reliable sources include the manufacturer when referring to the product, so do we... if they do not include the manufacturer then neither do we. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Although if that is the rule I'm thinking that "Adobe Photoshop" should just be called "Photoshop". --RenniePet (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that Adobe tends to market their products as "Adobe (whatever)" , including "Adobe Photoshop" "Adobe Flash", "Adobe Acrobat", etc. On the other hand, many people mistake that the Wii is really the "Nintendo Wii", which it isn't by Nintendo's marketing. So common name, including a weighted amount from the manufacturer, needs to be taken into account. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We do not worry about how the company wishes their product to be marketed... we follow common useage as shown by reliable sources. So... if Adobe Photoshop is commonly called simply "Photoshop" by reliable sources, I would agree that we should follow that useage and not include "Adobe" in the title. And if Wii is commonly referred to as "Nintendo Wii" we should use that as our title. The official name can be noted in the text of the article.

That said... We do have to be careful... a simple google search is going to turn up a lot of blogs, forums, and fan sites... ie non-reliable hits. This isn't a pure popularity contest. We need to base our title on truely reliable sources.

If we do go with the unadorned Photoshopt, we should be aware that the term "Photoshop" is gaining some currency as a verb... and may end up being used to refer to any photo-manipulation process, regardless of the program used (the way "Xerox" now means using any photo-copier)... we might need to revisite our decision in a few years, to disambiguate the generic from the specific. We can deal with that when (and if) it happens. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in both cases, if you look at the marketing info and what expert sites for said products (PC software and graphic designers for Photoshop, professional game journalism sites and magazines for the Wii) they will generally follow the marketing name. It is only when you open it up to a wider selection of sources that are less reliable due the "wrong" version of the names start to appear. Certainly in the case of PShop, the term "Photoshop" is more commonly stated than "Adobe Photoshop", but that's among all sources, the preference flips when you exclude blogs and the like. Common name should be the common name reflected in appropriate sources; otherwise we'd run into situations where something Jennifer Lopez would be actually at "J. Lo" simply due to which term is more popular among all sources verses a select set. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But we are not intended for experts, who have better sources. We are intended for lay readers.

On the substance, it seems to me that general usage divides; "Adobe Acrobat", but "Photoshop". Probably the fact that acrobat is ambiguous, but Photoshop only means a program, has something to do with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh: it's the endless self-identification debate, applied to another subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Question on case

I was in the midst of a disagreement on letter case for an article name and I am looking for an expert opinion.

The issue is regarding the title of an article on a geographical location (i.e. a specific place, not a generic geographical term). My thinking is that whatever name is chosen for the article is by definition a proper noun and, as such, all words in the title (excepting "of" and such) must be capitalized, regardless of what capitalization is applied by any particular sources. Other editors have argued that if we are writing an article about an area that is not formally recognized by any government, then only portions of the article name that are formally recognized should be capitalized with all other portions of the name lower case. So taking an arbitrary example, if I wrote an article about the area around Vostok Station, Antartica (assume for a moment that is actually notable), would I name this Vostok Station Area or Vostok Station area?

Thanks in advance.

--Mcorazao (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Follow the usage of your sources (with due caution; if they are badly translated from the Russian in other respects, they may not do capitalization well either).
• If that's not helpful, I would lower-case, unless somebody has declared a Vostok Station Area with specific boundaries and an administrative body of its own - and the article is about that administration.
• Without that, it's not a proper name; it's a description with a proper adjective.

For a parallel, consider the London Area Control Centre, for air traffic control. It describes itself as controlling the London and south-east area. That's idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, thank you. I changed my vote in this discussion as a result of your feedback (that discussion is much more broad but the issue of case did come up). --Mcorazao (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy or guideline?

It may be a bit early to discuss this, but the ideas in General Principles suggest to me that Misplaced Pages: Article titles may not a standalone policy in the sense that it does not contain any original principles that are not already included in other content policies.
In fact, by suspicion leads me to think that this policy would actually be better dealt with as part of the general notability guideline, based on the argument that the inclusion criteria for a topic as a standalone article are closely linked to the choice of title for that topic. Perhaps my logic is missing something? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy for it to be a guideline rather than a policy, but I think it deals with a quite distinct topic from notability.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think that? It seems to me that article topics and article names are a like the Chicken or the egg, in that you can't include one without having the other, but perhaps I am mistaken in this view. Why do you think they are distinct? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, you can't have an article without a title or a title without an article, but the question of whether a subject is notable enough to have an article and the question of what to title an article on a given subject would seem to be separate ones.--Kotniski (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, I think you might have had a point before we renamed the policy and shifted from talking about NAMEs to talking about TITLEs. There is some overlap between a topic's name and the topic itself (and thus the topic's notability). In fact, it was this overlap that we were trying to address when we renamed this policy. We wanted to distinguish between an article's title and the topic's "Name" (and thus distinguish between the article title and the topic itself)... we wanted to make it clearer that Article Title is not the same thing as the Topic's Name or the Topic itself.

"As for how this all relates to notability... I think notability comes first in the decision making process... first we determine whether the topic is notable... then we worry about what the best title for the article about that topic is.

Think of it in the other direction and it becomes even clearer... if a topic isn't notable, we should not have an article about it... and if we don't have an article, we don't need a title for it. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on all these points. Going back to my earlier suspicions, if we don't have an article, in which case we don't need a title for it, does that not suggest that this is not a policy per se, but an offshoot of the notability guideline? I am not trying to make a particular point, but it seems to me a key to understanding the issue of article titles is how it sits relative to the other content policies in terms of unique principles.
The bottom line question for me is, what unique principle does this policy set out? If the key principles are verifibility, neutral point of view and no original research, what does this policy offer that does not originate from another policy or guideline? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is an "off shoot" of the notability guideline. Yes there is a minor connection between this and NOTE (it relates to other issues as well... such as NPOV and NOR... in fact, if it is an "off shoot" of anything it is an "off shoot" of WP:NPOV) but I think it stands on its own in dealing with a unique aspect of Misplaced Pages (how to choose titles for our articles). It is similar in this respect to WP:FRINGE... that policy is heavily tied to NOTE as well as other policy/guideline pages... but because it focuses on a unique aspect of Misplaced Pages (articles on fringe theories) it stands on its own.

We can certainly discuss whether this page should be a guideline instead of a policy (I am very open to that discussion), but I think your reasoning on why it should be depreciated is off base. This policy (or guideline) deals with a distinct issue that has nothing to do with notability. How we title an article really has nothing to do with whether the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Look at your argument in relation to other policy pages and you will see the flaw... By your logic, NPOV would be a guideline under NOTE, because if there is no article, then there is no need to be neutral. Same with WP:V... no need for verification. All our policies interact with each other... the issue is whether they explain a unique aspect of editing Wikipeida. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeking to depreciate this policy, because I see its importance to be very high. But if this policy is distinct or unique, how does it stake its claim to be so? For instance, my view is that WP:FRINGE is really a subset of WP:UNDUE, as its purpose and principles are set out (more or less) in other content policies. As regards this policy, my suspicion remains: if there is a distinct and unique principle which says "article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources", how is this unique or distinct from other policies and guidelines other than its focus on titles? What is the mechanism that makes it work? It seems to me that either there are two possible approaches:

1. Define what form an article title should not take, e.g. an article title is not ambigious, a principle that seems to be unique to this policy;
2. Define how article titles out to be with reference to Misplaced Pages's content policy, e.g. verifiable, neutral, not a synethesis, an appoach similar to notability.

The reason I ask is not simply to flog a dead horse, but to understand if an article title is something independently arrived at, or is it determined by reference to the content of the article. Just to be clear what I am seeking to achieve: if we can establish a generally agreed answer to this question, then this would tend to promote or demote the approach I have suggested in the General Principles above.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I think I understand what you are asking... The problem is that we need to approach article titling from both directions and discuss both aspects of article titling... we need to discuss the form an article title should and should not take, and we need to discuss how to determine what the best title is. At the moment we kind of jumble it all together ... but it would be clearer if we discussed these topics in separate sections. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that WP:Notability has enough problems on its own that a merge proposal, or even any explicit connection between "Should Misplaced Pages have an article about whoever the previous president of the United States of America was?" and "Shall we title this article 'W' or 'Bush the Second' or 'George W Bush'?" is a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A page name is not content, so the content policies do not directly affect the name of a page. That this page does not appear to be a "standalone policy in the sense that it does not contain any original principles" is because some editors have worked hard over the last few years to integrate theis policy into the general structure of Misplaced Pages. For example until June 2008 the use of reliable sources was not included in this page, because this page pre-dates most of the other policy pages. Once that was included much of the rest fell into place, because before that simple concept was introduced many naming guidelines were over complicated attempts to express that concept through rules to make sure that the name used in reliable sources were used even when the common name was not the same. -- PBS (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article's title is not content, then what is it? Formatting?

Look at it from another angle: If a page is moved to "John Smith is an idiot" or "Pack of money-grubbing lies by pharma companies", then would you reasonably expect editors to cite content policies in changing it back to "John Smith" or "Pharmacology"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We really need to distinguish between terms in this discussion. Because these distinctions makes all the difference. Take our article on Bill Clinton as an example. As I see it...

• The "page name" is: en.wikipedia.org/Bill_Clinton
• The "article title" is: Bill Clinton

I would agree that the "page name" is not content... but the "article title" is content. However, it is a distinct form of content. Our content policies apply... but in a unique way that needs to be discussed separately. Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What ever one wishes to describe it as, it is distinct from the content of an article. Although we have rules that tie the two two together they are distinct. And no WhatamIdoing I would expect people to use this page to change it back to the former name, not the content policies. Indeed changing a page name is often done so that content can then be altered, so usually (but not always) content follows title not the other way around. -- PBS (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This page should remain a policy for the practical argument that without it being a policy other policies such as consensus and IAR would tie the hands of administrators over at WP:RM when a group of muppets insist that the name they have chosen must be used even when it is not supported by this page. At a slightly more abstract level: If this is only a guideline, it has no more authority than the other naming guidelines, in which case "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world". -- PBS (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Apocalypse? Doesn't that invoke some sort of super-Godwin's Law?

My view is that policies state fundamental, non-negotiable facts of Misplaced Pages. Guidelines give merely guidance. I think the one fundamental fact of naming is that we follow usage in reliable sources; or rather, we follow usage in those reliable sources that share with us certain values, most importantly neutrality. This page doesn't really state that. Instead it gives a lot of guidance that amounts to much the same thing, but is both more specific and more wishy-washy. Therefore I would say this is a guideline, not a policy. But I am sympathic to PBS' concerns about how a demotion to guideline would be wielded. Hesperian 04:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

".... This page doesn't really state that"... huh? Isn't that exactly what WP:COMMONNAME is saying? Blueboar (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

One does not expect to find a fundamental, non-negotiable, overarching principle, first mentioned in the second section after the lead. Hesperian 04:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your personal view of policies is not supported by either WP:Policies and guidelines or general practice, which is far more complicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you say so, WhatamIdoing. It remains my personal view. Hesperian 05:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your view is rational and desirable; it just doesn't happen to be the community's view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Up until the last last few months of last year the first section of this page (and before that it was in the the lead) contained a statement along the lines that Hesperian is alluding to. I am still not sure that there is agreement to move away from that. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Majority or preponderance of sources?

I seemed to have noticed a possible discrepancy in this policy's wording. It says:

• Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article.

To me, the "most common" means the one used most often, i.e. a preponderance of reliable sources. Later it says:

• When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources

Here it says "significant majority" which is pretty self-explanation.

So, I would like some clarification. To determine an article's title, do we need a preponderance or majority? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do need a preponderance or a majority. :>)

OK, to be serious, I don't think that we have reached firm consensus on this issue, because everytime we started to discuss it, we kept getting side tracked by the endless 'self ID' debate. Personally, I think it is a bit of both, depending on how contentious the discussion over the title is. In a non-contentious discussion a simple preponderance may be enough to decide between two or three equally acceptable titles. But when things are contentious, I think you need more. How much more is a harder issue to quantify... after all, where does preponderance end and "significant majority" begin? Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, article titles are only normally determined this way. :>) Dmcq (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Darn, I was hoping for a straight, simple answer. Yes, it's a contentious issue. In fact, it might be the most controversial article on Misplaced Pages right now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess... Climatic Research Unit hacking incident? In my opinion it should be at "Climategate", as that is what is resoundingly used in the media and the most likely title to be searched for... but I do understand that there is a clear consensus against that title. This opposition leaves us inventing a "unique to Misplaced Pages" title, and all the POV debates that go along with doing so. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. It's a very frustrating situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was intimately involved in writing both this policy and WP:NPOV#Article titles, I know both the letter and more importantly the intent of the relevant policy statements. As such, I have left a comment at the article talk page outlining my views as to how both the letter and intent of our policies should be applied in this case. My call... if we follow both the letter and the intent of our policies, then that article should be titled "Climategate"... However, I also think that there is enough of a consensus against using "Climategate" that an invocation of WP:IAR would be justified. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not altogether happy with the change to the descriptive titles section. There is also a convention of just going by the most common name when an event is history but being more careful about neutral phrasing of titles for recent controversies. Dmcq (talk)

I am not that happy with my edit either (so feel free to revert)... what I am trying to grope for is some explanation of when to use an existing proper name and when to create a descriptive title. The point I am trying to make is that we should follow the sources... when there is already a widely used name for something (as demonstrated by usage in reliable sources), we should use that name as our title, even if it is considered non-neutral ... we should not make up a descriptive title to use instead. On the other hand, we do want names that are neutral if possible. The hard part is expressing where that line is... in the "Attorneygate" example, the name was coined and used... but not used widely enough.

As for the history vs. recent controversies distinction... when does something shift from being a "recent controversy" to being "history"? Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted myself... but we should think on this a bit further. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That Climategate example is a good test point. It probably is the more common name in newspapers but it would imply Misplaced Pages was taking a partisan view on a current controversy and lead to far worse trouble than what's there. It would be bad for the development of whkipedia as an encyclopaedia to insist on it when it can just be used in a redirect anyway and so I'd agree with IAR to not use it even if it was the policy here. Dmcq (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

But isn't the intent (and wording) of WP:NPOV about editorial neutrality? The world gets to decide and we simply report back what they've decided. So if the world adopts a partisan term as the common name, we're not supposed to overrule them. We're not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. There are plenty of POV article titles that are legit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the question isn't it... is it partisan to use a term that has gained common usage? and conversely is there a point where it becomes partisan to not use it? I think both are answered with "yes"... What we need to figure out is where that point is. Not easy. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't the same as majority vote. The purpose of wikipedia is to develop an encyclopaedia and if the title of an article is deeply offensive to one side that will work against the aim of wikipedia. Putting in what might be the majority title as seen in newspapers would very easily lead to the rest of the article being rubbish and wikipedia itself getting into trouble by seen as partisan by people. Having a redirect from a contentious name to a neutral name and saying about the contentious name in the article gets round that problem. There is no need to encourage a battleground mentality where one side gets a majority vote and crushes the other. The problem with a title is that it can't show all sides of a controversy in due proportion and therefore what's said in NPOV can't be applied strictly to titles, the best that can be done is to show the majority title when that's not going to cxause too much trouble or otherwise choose something neutral. Dmcq (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, this hands every group who feels their Sacred Cause is being dissed by common English usage a veto; by this reasoning, we can't use Kiev lest we be contentious with the Ukrainian nationalists, and we can't have any title for the Republic of Macedonia at all: to the extremists on one side, any name other than Macedonia is unacceptable; to the extremists on the other side, anything which contains Macedonia is unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not every question has a clean answer, disputes between countries over names and territories are so common there's special rules covering most of them. And even then I think the rules have probably been broken for Derry, or should it be Londonderry or Derry/Londonderry or Stroke City. In any case there isn't a good neutral name one could use in such cases so this wouldn't apply. Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether a 'preponderance' or 'majority' is the right answer depends in part on how many names are used by the sources. If you have eleven names used each by just 5% of sources, and one name used by 45% of sources, you'd hardly want to skip the (by far) most common name simply because it wasn't used in 50.1% of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For an interesting look at how events are named... check out Naming the American Civil War. I note that in our article on that event, we do follow the preponderance of the sources and title the article on the event American Civil War, (and not any of the less used options) ... and note, there are people who strong opinion on this. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

At least there are good history books about it to refer to. I'd have thought the Arab-Isreali conflict would be more relevant. Part of it is old enough to have history books, should those bits still count as part of a current controversy or should one insist on using whatever seems most common in history books? And should one consider the history books may well be biased to the side which has more English speakers? Dmcq (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

should one consider the history books may well be biased to the side which has more English speakers? Good history books aren't; but on titles, this is essentially an objection to this English Misplaced Pages being anglophone, as it is intended to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A different area I can see problems arising is with trademark names becoming generic but the owner still defending their property. I don't think it is Misplaced Pages's place to go around destroying trademarks. Dmcq (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

How about: A descriptive title may be used for a currently unfolding topic within a controversy to ensure it reflects a neutral point of view. If the topic is historical rather than current then its title may be changed to the name that would otherwise be used even if the controversy is still current. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

article titles and their colors

I'm sad to not know the answer to this and even sadder that I can't seem to find the answer...can anyone tell me the meaning of different colors used for article titles (if any)? For example...the article for Hera has a blue title, while the article for Juno has a rust-colored title. I've noticed a variety of colors - purple, green, cyan, etc...and black, which seems to be reserved for all Misplaced Pages guideline pages. I was assuming that the color corresponded with the class of the article (Good = green; list = purple), until I found quite a few exceptions. Is there a method to this madness? ocrasaroon| 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They both show up as black for me... links in blue. (When linking blue means there is an article while red indicates no article.) Blueboar (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is about the colors used in the infoboxes. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... then no, the colors don't mean anything as far as I know. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the disgustingly sickly Love Cabal with its yeucky love hearts is behind the different colors if you have a look at the psychadelic signatures on their page. :) Dmcq (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way if colors are of interest to you theres a discussion currently at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Colour and there's a guideline at WP:COLOR. Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe OP was referring to the color coding of article titles according to assessment, which is an interface option. See User:Pyrospirit/metadata.Synchronism (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Subject Conventions

I have tweaked this language slightly, since it is being abused. If we had meant to say: every subject convention must prefer the most common English usage, we would have said so. The old wording is being used to imply that doctrine in two separate discussions, which means that it needs modification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

I don't object to a clarification, but the reason you gave is usually less important to the authors of those naming conventions than precision and accuracy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the convention. In some conventions, we are choosing among equally precise forms for consistency and conciseness; whether we say James I of England or James VI of Scotland and I of England and Ireland, there's still only one of him. But I've added precision, as relevant to some, but not all, Flora issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency March 2010

See Consistency 4 to 20 December 2009 and Consistency December 20

I am reverting PMA's changes because I think they are controversial, and should be discussed. I do not think that consistency should be used to justify ignoring the usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I, but the community's effective position is different from what we would like - I thought PMA's change led to a better description of the reality.--Kotniski (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Nor did I say anything to justify ignoring reliable sources; the conventions, however, do in fact choose among the usages in reliable sources. Both "Joshua tree" and Yucca brevifolia are found in reliable sources; the question of which to use does in fact depend on issues (the alleged greater precision of the Latin name; consistency in using Latin names) beyond which of the common forms is most common.

Note for Hesperian: I have intentionally chosen an example where the common name is coterminous with a botanical species; hence "alleged". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication that it is the wider communities position. Take one of the supporters of current wording in Flora, Hesperian, and then see his arguments on this page in #Policy or guideline? "My view is that policies state fundamental, non-negotiable facts of Misplaced Pages. Guidelines give merely guidance. I think the one fundamental fact of naming is that we follow usage in reliable sources; or rather, we follow usage in those reliable sources that share with us certain values, most importantly neutrality." Or his quote of PMA (who's edit I've reverted) "I can do no better than quote PMA above: No additional weight whatsoever.... If the sources are evenly split, go to our other considerations: ... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Hesperian 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)"

The problem is identified in WP:CONSENSUS

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right."

Which is a fair description of the problems with naming guidelines that do not conform with this policy, and I disagree with massaging this policy to accommodate guidelines that ignore the spirit of this policy because a "limited group of editors" have ownership of a guideline. It is the same problem that existed between WP:V and WP:RS before it was made explicit in WP:V that WP:V rules. -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Every naming guideline which I have ever seen complies with this policy. The limited groups which think otherwise are mostly clustered around a single issue, in which they wish the article to reflect their point of view, and will quote the first section of AT as though it were rules and not principles (at least those of its principles which support the world as they would wish it to be).

I except the group which consists of Philip Baird Shearer, which does indeed have a point in these discussions; I will do another draft, including an express mention that we are following reliable sources, and precision (as What recommends above). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Flora starts with "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following: " it does not start from the premise of using reliable sources to determine the name. Likewise WP:NCROY "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." Now I know the history of this page so I know why it developed the way it did (because common name used to often simply mean Google web hits) but since it has been agreed to us reliable sources to define the set of common names, much of the specific rules are redundant and both guidelines would be far better if they were simplified to work from reliable sources. Consistency is being used as a prop to support old decisions that were made in good faith but are now redundant. If both guidelines were deleted tomorrow morning, based on reliable sources and general guidelines like precision, I would guess that 95% of the current articles would still be at the same names. What they should be doing is starting from the premise of "Common names should be used for article titles where these are widely used and are unambiguous, BUT ... " which is how WP:NCASTRO a more recently developed guideline does it "Common names should be used for article names in preference to official names where these are widely used and are unambiguous." -- PBS (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip, I almost agree with you, but there are plenty out there who don't (see the people who vote "per WP:NCXXX" in naming discussions, without the slightest concern whether the name their pet convention gives is actually in common use). And I recall the last time we had an RfC on this matter, our side lost - more people were concerned with not seeing their favourite conventions compromised than with imposing a general common-name-based standard. If we're going to reach and demonstrate a new consensus, we need another widely publicized RfC, since this is an issue that concerns, well, every Misplaced Pages editor.--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the result of the previous RfC was a backlash against a reading of COMMONNAME as "use the lowest-common-denominator name, the name most familiar to the man in the street, without regard to register, precision, accuracy, what reliable sources use, what our audience would expect, or anything else". That was bloody ridiculous. The one advantage of that tedious saga was that it honed many minds, one or two of which were even capable of changing!; and eventually, much much later, we ended up with a much better policy. I for one would be willing to work/advocate to bring WT:NC (flora) more explicitly into line with "Follow usage in reliable sources"; whereas I will continue to oppose bringing it into line with "Use the lowest-common-denominator name". Though I can't speak for the good people at WT:FLORA, I would not anticipate much opposition from that quarter. The birds people have simply adopted the convention used by reliable sources in their field, so you won't see much opposition from them either. I really think the time may be ripe for is to start tilting the scales towards usage in reliable sources, away from internal consistency. Hesperian 06:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I might be led to agree with PBS, except for his revert-warring. As a matter of general policy, I think the five considerations we identify are all important; only PBS holds that we must use "most common names" at all costs in accuracy, consistency, and brevity.

However, that is not the issue here. This mindless reversion does not change between a text which says or means "use most common names" and one which doesn't; neither does. Both say that conventions do in fact recommend something else from time to time (sometimes or occasionally, in the different versions, and should generally be followed when they do. One merely says it in Hesperian's archest prose, and is liable to be misunderstood.

If PBS had a suggestion for a clearer wording which gives more weight to the principles he considers important, I would very likely accept it; if he had modified the new text, I would have left it alone. Bit I have not altered this policy, I have merely made clearer what it already said. Revert-warring to produce or maintain confusion is disruptive and unhelpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

<--(edit clash) PMA I am responding to your comment in the history of the article. I have explained why I think that the wording you want to replace is better than the wording with which you are replacing it. If I have not made it clear enough then I can explain in more detail. But have a look at WP:NCROY as Kotniski and I have altered the lead. A similar change to the other delinquent guidelines would solve the problem, and probably, make the whole paragraph redundant. -- PBS (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That change was contrary to the clear wording of the first section of this policy; it also misstated the scope of WP:NCNT. It is doubtless true that if we made PBS God-King, we would solve many problems, in the same sense that they were to be solved in A Man for All Seasons:

More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

But, fortunately, the position of God-King is already taken; and the current occupant has much less wish to cut down every policy in Misplaced Pages; so we will not see what winds will blow when one man's whim replaces consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

PMA why the personal attacks? I am reverting and not altering the wording because the first thing we should do is agree what changes need to be made. If I make changes that you disagree with then we have instability. Much better to revert to version that has been there for some months and then see if we can agree on some wording. "the most common form of the common name" what does that mean? I disagree with the wording "usually for the sake of precision, or of consistency with other titles in the same domain". If it were only for precision then we have a guideline for that, I have real problems with consistency as it is inherently conservative, and can easily clash with the usage in reliable sources, particularly if previous decisions have been made either ignoring the guidance given in the naming policy of guidelines, or were made using guidelines that gave advise contrary to the current policy's wording.

"This is particularly common in domains where the most common name in reliable sources is usually ambiguous," The use of "common" again is possibly not the best, and what does "domain" mean? But that is minor in comparison to "most common name in reliable sources is usually ambiguous" that is certainly not true for flora (as in most cases the scientific name is the only reliably sourced name).

The only thing that is controversial with nobility, and flora, is that they are (or were when you introduced the change) rule based and not sourced based, so when the rules produce a name that is not supported by the majority of reliable sources (and the general guidelines like precision and disambiguation for further refinement), people argue that the rule derived name in those guidelines should be ignored in favour of the name used in reliable sources. If the rule set is altered so that it expands and explains the use in reliable sources in those areas and give guidance when the results from reliable sources are ambiguous or otherwise not clear, then the guidelines are not controversial, and is the case with nearly all the guidelines with a few exceptions. It is the exceptional guidelines that are the controversial ones, and if they are modified then there will be no need for the paragraph that starts "This practice of using specialized names ...".

If those few guidelines are bought into line then the wording of this section becomes much simpler:

"Misplaced Pages has a number of naming guidelines relating to specific areas (as listed in the box at the top of this page) these give guidance on how to title articles in those areas by supplementing and explaining this policy page. Policies take precedence over guidelines, so in the case of any inconsistency between this page and a guideline, this policy page has priority."

-- PBS (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Except... we do say that when our various criteria conflict with each other editors should reach a consensus. In the case of the Flora project we have a conflict between common names (which people disagree over) and precision (everyone agrees on the scientific names). So... the editors on the Flora project reached a consensus to follow precision over commonality for Flora articles. In other words... consistency is already included in this policy... under the heading of consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In the category of mis-quotations, WP:GUIDES actually says, "Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes precedence" -- and this page is one of the reasons that it says "normally" rather than "always". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The wording you call a mis-quote, is a quote strait from WP:V. --PBS (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that WP:V badly paraphrases the policy that it cites as its authority does not turn WP:V's imprecise paraphrase into the actual rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You miss my point... consistency isn't a matter of policy vs guideline precedence... because the policy itself says to reach a consensus when there is a conflict between criteria. The various topic guidelines are merely statements of what the consensus is, as it relates to articles within a given topic area. The guidelines don't over-rule the policy... they are based upon it. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency has been added to this guideline fairly recently and as you know I think the current wording is a mistake, both for the reasons I have given previously and because it allows the sort of argument you are putting forward to support delinquent guidelines. Even so I am not sure how you come to the conclusion "So... the editors on the Flora project reached a consensus to follow precision over commonality for Flora articles." as WP:NC (flora) says: "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis". So they not using "precision" but rules to determine the name. If they were consistent then every article would use the scientific names. Like the previous wording in WP:NCNT "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." (my emphasis and I am amazed no one has reverted back to it), it tries to impose a set of rules which while they approximate to the general naming policies result in different names in some cases and it is those few cases that are contentious. With a change to the guideline to give advise on how to interpret specific problems in that area, the name of most articles would remain the same and a few would be different (how do I know that? See the talk page I ran a test on a set of names that had been moved by one editor who used the flora rules exclusively, and compared that with just using policy). We should not be wording this policy document to make it easier for a "limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot to override community consensus on a wider scale". -- PBS (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip... you're wikilawyering ... The word "consistency" may be a relatively recent addition (I will have to see when exactly it was added)... but some sort of statement saying essentially the same thing (ie if there is a project guideline follow it) has been part of this page for a long time.

But to be honest, I don't really care about how long or briefly it has been in the policy. Consensus can change, so the only question we need to ask is: should it be in the policy? I am open on that issue, leaning towards "yes, it should".

As for the Flora articles, one last point... Have you considered that the Flora naming convention might be using the term "common name" with a different meaning than we do here... From my reading of that guideline, I suspect that they are using the term to mean: "the name used by non-specialists" (or "the name used by common people") as opposed to our meaning of: "the name most commonly found in reliable sources". In fact, there is an argument to be made that, since the vast majority of reliable botany texts will include the scientific name as well as one or more of various local non-scientific names used by common people .... then the scientific name actually is the most common name as found in reliable sources. If this is the case, then the Flora guideline is actually supporting WP:COMMONNAME when it says to use the scientific name. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in the framing of the flora naming convention, I can say that consistency was only a minor consideration. The main issue was a desire to use the nomenclature of our field; i.e. to follow usage in reliable sources. These priorities may not be inferrable from the written word of the policy, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I say again that I do not believe the flora people are as opposed (if at all) to following usage in reliable sources as they are to using the lowest-common-denominator name of the man in the street. Hesperian 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have put my money where my mouth is and overhauled the flora naming convention. If there are no objections, as I anticipate, then you can cross that off the list of "delinquent" guidelines. Hesperian 01:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've said recently in a recent and related discussion, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Consistency is here being used for essentially aesthetic reasons, rather than for the purpose for which this encyclopedia exists; that is, the reader. We don't name articles so that they all look "consistent"; rather, we name them in the way that is most beneficial for the reader. Jayjg 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Right on... but the reader benefits from some consistency. Hesperian 01:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, in general consistency is helpful. But here it's being elevated into a primary goal - and, not incidentally, being used by PManderson to assist him in a different dispute. It's a terrible idea to modify policy so that editor aesthetics win out over reader-friendliness, and so that you can win a dispute, which is what is being done here. Jayjg 01:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Albuquerque, New_Mexico#Move proposal? --PBS (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

On "It's a terrible idea to modify policy so that editor aesthetics win out over reader-friendliness", I'm pretty sure no-one here disagrees with you. There are two issues here:

1. Compared to the rest of us, PBS has a heightened sense of how wording can be abused, and tends to revert to the status quo if an edit isn't just right. His defense of such reverts is that the new version could be misused in such-and-such a way, but that does not mean that the author of the new version intended such a misuse.

   Precisely, "unforeseen consequences" (probably because I'm tempted to use it that way >:-> )-- PBS (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Though we here mostly agree that editor convenience should not trump reader-friendliness, it remains indubitable fact that naming conventions like our styles and titles convention have strong community support despite producing hideous titles whose only merits are consistency. We therefore have to temper our prescriptive approach to make sure this policy remains descriptive of what Wikipedians actually do.

Hesperian 01:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I drafted the following then events in the physical world got in the way but even though the conversion has moved on a bit and I have not yet read Hesperians changes I think it still worth posting:

Yes BB, the use of common name had to be defined with a footnote in the guideline Naming conventions (common names) which is now included in the policy see WP:COMMONNAME. "but some sort of statement saying essentially the same thing (ie if there is a project guideline follow it) has been part of this page for a long time". There was an ambiguity in the wording, it depends on whether one read this to be the naming conventions page and the others were guidelines to the conventions, or if the guidelines were also naming conventions. Consistency was introduced with these two separate edits here to the nutshell and here to the body on 7 September 2009. If you look before that date there was no mention of consistency in the policy. Which is not surprising because it is contrary to consensus can change. As far as I know there was no previous agreement for its introduction. It seems to me that the edits were based on this draft proposal which was largely drafted by Hesperian that I believe was drafted to justify the wording of the Flora guideline and a concept first introduced into conversations on the flora talk pages on 2 December 8 and is further developed as There is more than one priority here. So not it has not been in the Naming conventions for very long and as can be seen has been rejected by a number of other editors.

Hesperian apart from user:Born2cycle (who is not a very active editor at the moment) I don't think anyone who has contributed to the debate on flora in the last two years has seriously suggested that "lowest-common-denominator name of the man in the street" be used. That was a concern before PMA added reliable sources to this policy, but since then the rule based structure to flora is an impediment not a help to using reliable sources to determine the name of articles. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Much better Hesperian. With an edit you have fixed my major complain about WP:NC (flora) and in my opinion turned it from a controversial guideline, into a guideline which while I might quibble with the details no longer contradicts this policy. Well done and thank you. -- PBS (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. There is a case for taking it further, but you of all people will agree that it is necessary to move slowly and cautiously on these issues.

Well now, I believe the birds people, who, in mandating the use of standardised common name, are simply following the nomenclature of their field, might easily agree that they too are motivated by a desire to follow usage in reliable sources, rather than consistency-for-consistency's-sake. Little by little we are isolating the last of the "delinquents". :-) Hesperian 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that consistency has a value, but it's a recent (and obviously controversial) addition to the policy, and seems to be given undue weight here. Consistency is good, all other things being equal. Jayjg 02:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're preaching to the converted, Jayjg. We all agree on that. This dispute is about how prescriptive we should be, in the face of dreadful article titles like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Do we prescribe rules, and do we describe current practice? PBS leans more toward prescribing; PMA leans the other way. PMA makes a description more accurate, and PBS sees that him change the rules. PBS changes the rules back, and PMA seems him restore an inaccuracy. :-( Hesperian 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And that's policy: policies and guidelines describe.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But it may be useful to repeat to those who will listen: We are not discussing a change in the rules. This reversion did not change the substance of the guideline at all; it said before reversion that subject guidelines do not always use common names, and it said so afterwards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's what it looks like to me. Yet you must have had some reason for the edit. What was that? Hesperian 11:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Occasionally hedges too far; WP:FLORA quite often displaces the most common name. For example, consider North American trees: tulip tree, sugar maple, American sycamore are redirects, although the vernacular names are more common, much more recognizable, and equally precise. So with the other conventions. (I grant that this may depend on how you count; but often-consulted articles on well-known subjects should weigh more than stubs on algae. That's what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is all about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• On the other hand, it is useful to suggest, as the section now does, that we should choose among common names. Henry IV of England, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom are commonly used, even if they are not as common as the (usually ambiguous) shorter common forms. Nicholas Sarkozy of France is not - largely because in the foreseeable future he will cease to be of France (insofar as he is) and return to his normal status as party politician. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency is not an aesthetic principle; that's smoke and mirrors - any aesthetic benefit is welcome but incidental. Consistency serves the reader, in two (overlapping) ways: a reader should be able to tell where an article is likely to be. Even Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom serves this puirpose; once a reader has seen George II of the United Kingdom, and Henry IV of England, he will expect the article where it is.

The second purpose is that we should not set the reader puzzles, especially when the answer is not obvious. Look at Category:Heads of state of Canada, or of New Zealand; if she is moved, the reader will be entitled to wonder why all the rest are of the United Kingdom amd she isn't. Is some obscure political point being made? (And in fact it is; our Canadian monarchists wish to claim that she is Queen of Canada in a different sense than Victoria was.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I'm not a Canadian monarchist, so don't jump on me Pmanderson). Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada in a different sense to Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria did not reign over Canada with the title Queen of Canada (as QEII is) and nor did she reign with a separate Canadian Crown (as monarchs after the Statute of Westminster have), and she also did not reign over Canada as a fully independent nation (as Queen Elizabeth II has, following the Canadian Constitution Act 1982). Queen Victoria reigned over Canada first as several colonies of the British Empire, and following 1867 as a country which was part of the British Empire. --~Knowzilla 06:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To the extent this argument is addressed at me, it is a red herring. I support leaving Liz where she is so long as we have the current royalty convention. But I think the current convention is a joke. As such, comparison with George and Harry are not relevant. Hesperian 06:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never realised you were that much of a prescriptivist... But on PMA's "reader entitled to wonder" point - it is valid (so if it's right to move Liz, then it's probably also right to move at least her most immediate predecesssors), but it also works the other way - why do a few heads of state have "of somewhere" in their articles while others don't (not "Nicolas Sarkozy of France", or even "Akihito of Japan")? And why does this head of multiple states have just one of them mentioned in her title? A reader wondering these things might reasonably come to all sorts of wrong conclusions. This is what I mean (bottom of page) about attempts to force local consistency actually resulting in inconsistency pedia-wide.--Kotniski (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wow, I never realised you were that much of a prescriptivist..." Addressed at me? How so? Hesperian 12:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Just that you say you support leaving Liz where she is "as long as we have the convention" - implying you think we must follow the rules even if the rules tell us to do something silly. Sorry if I misunderstood.--Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the convention as 'rules'. I see it as an articulation of the consensus of the people who actually work on these royalty articles. I support leaving Liz where she is because I don't support a bunch of know-nothing know-it-all policy wonks who don't actually work on these royalty articles (i.e. us) claiming that we know better than those who do work on them. The people who actually work on these articles are the people whose opinions really matter. If I can convince them their convention sucks, great. If I cannot convince them, I will not overrule them. Essentially I'm endorsing their right to thumb their nose at our policy if they are really so sure that our policy is not what works best in the field. More or less the opposite of how you read it. (But there's still no need to apologise.) Hesperian 13:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<--You may not see them as rules but until this weeks change in the lead the lead clearly stated that they are rules: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem" (my emphasis). This is a general encyclopaedia and names should be those which the general public would most easily recognise. It is often the case that experts are not the best to judge these things as they are members of a group and group often use words and phrases which are impenetrable to the uninitiated, (just as we do with initials on this page (AT NPOV etc)). -- PBS (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

But we don't in fact do that as universally as PBS would make out. Liriodendron is not the most common name, much less the most common form - and yet it is consensus, and there is a mass of similar cases. (I join PBS in dissent, and will gladly consider adapting this page when consensus changes; but it hasn't.) Therefore, this policy should - as WP:GUIDES says - describe our actual practice, not figments of the handful of editors who discuss this page. If we do not in fact win the arguments, revert-warring to keep this page as a picture of a Misplaced Pages which never existed is playing Canute - and in the long run, discrediting those large portions of this page which are consensus. Therefore, I am stubbornly amending to say sometimes; it is harmful to have this page lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive disambiguation

One of the older rules in naming articles has been that we should not use pre-emptive disambiguation, presumably because it clashes with precision. However as far as I can tell WP:D does not prohibit it and WP:AT is silent on the issue -- or at least there is no explicit mention of it, and the current wording could be interpreted either way.

In the discussion Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Workshop and in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions the arguments were based on Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television) which explicitly said, and still says

"When additional precision for disambiguation is not required, do not disambiguate the name in the title of the article"

However there are times when pre-emptive disambiguation saves editors a lot of time and effort and aids reader by making links less likely to be wrong. One example were this was adopted with with numerical military units, as one did not have to be a military historian to realise that many armies have or had a 10th Division. By making the name of division predictable "number, division (state)" it was possible for someone to write an article that mentioned a nation's 10th division and link to the appropriate name, even if at that time the article on that nations 10th division had not been written and so provide a red link to say one was needed.

Another place were we have pre-emptive disambiguation is on the article titles of places in the United States, this came about first of all because many of them were bot created, but it proved useful, firstly because the Americans are used to saying "town, state" as in Birmingham, Alabama, and it meant for other English speaking nations where that habit is less common, that there was less need to disambiguate article names for towns like Birmingham. As many US towns have been named after towns in other countries, this pre-emptive disambiguation has helped a large tranche of the Wikiepdia project names remain relatively stable and to change it now would have a large impact on Misplaced Pages article title throughout the the geographical area not just those places in United States region. I do think however it helped that an adjustment was made for the most famous couple of dozen US cities such as Boston that were move by acknowledging the usage of the AP Stylebook as an WP:IAR piece of common sense.

The wording in this draft proposal suggests

"However, in some fields where ambiguity is very common, article titles are pre-emptively disambiguated—that is, all articles are given a disambiguation suffix, whether ambiguous or not—in order to simplify linking."

I think this issue needs further discussion. Perhaps it is an area where there should be a general rule in the AT policy that pre-emptive disambiguation should not be used, but in some areas where ambiguity is very common, guidelines my advises pre-emptive disambiguation of article titles. What do others think? -- PBS (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I dislike pre-emptive disambiguation, but it is endemic in geographic articles. I've tried several times to get it overturned on Australian places, and gotten absolutely nowhere. This would be an very hard battle to win. I doubt it is worth fighting. Hesperian 10:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably so, but we could at least try. The sad thing is that "preemptive disambiguation" is justified by a desire for consistency, whereas in fact, since it causes the articles in those particular subject areas to be treated differently from those everywhere else in Misplaced Pages, it actually leads to inconsistency on a wider scale.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In Australia we have the further inconsistency of pre-disambiguating localities using the comma convention, but disambiguating geographic locations only when necessary, using the parentheses convention. This puts us in the situation of having to have Margaret River the town at Margaret River, Western Australia and Margaret River the river at Margaret River (Western Australia)! We are constantly having to stop newbs from pre-disambiguating localities, disambiguating geographic places using the comma convention, etcetera. However anyone could come up with something as messy as this in the name of consistency is beyond me. Yet it enjoys wide support, including many of the most outspoken and influential Australian editors. Hesperian 11:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an advantage of the American convention; we don't have that problem. If an American municipality is created, or changes name, we give it City, State automatically. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that we want to encourage or endorse predisambiguation under any circumstances. If editors choose to go that route, they should be invoking WP:IAR.

In medicine-related articles, we occasionally see inexperienced editors trying to pre-dab entirely unique names. They seem to think that "Exceedingly rare disease (genetic disease)" is a better name than just plain "Exceedingly rare disease". The usual argument is that a longer title means that people don't need to read the article to find out what it is. I wouldn't wish to have any support for that practice here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

When we anticipate that articles will need disambiguation, and the absence of present conflict is only a function of the incompleteness of the encyclopedia, it is only reasonable to put the article where it will eventually go anyway. This also offers the advantages of a consistent naming system, discussed in the section above. Where ambiguity is not anticipated, and there is no system, then it should be discouraged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But then you get inconsistency at the (inevitable) boundaries between those sets of articles which "have a system" (i.e. happened to get the attention of a particular systematizing group of editors at some point in Misplaced Pages's history) and sets which don't. So primary-topic US and Australian places have disambiguators where primary-topic European places don't; European monarchs have "of somewhere" added (no, this isn't common usage, at least not the way we do it) where Asian monarchs and European presidents don't. --Kotniski (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Try reading histories. It is not the most common usage, which would be simple name and Roman numeral, but that would be massively redundant; it is a common usage, normally employed when introducing a king from any coutnry the author doesn't happen to be discussing at the moment. (Except when a king is uniquely known by an epithet, and even then Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden is not unknown; the reader may need a reminder. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But "we anticipate that articles will need disambiguation" is not an accurate description of situations where predisambiguation is occurring. With respect to Australian geography, I've always felt I firmly debunked that notion here, but of course this place has no corporate memory, so no myth remains debunked for long. Hesperian 23:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And if this policy, or any policy, is being misapplied, have a word with the current offenders, and mention the problem here. I would have no objection to writing in conditions on when predabbing is to be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussing weight in criteria

To some degree, the above discussions all center on the concept of how much weight to give our different criteria (Recognizably, Precision, Consistency, etc) when titling an article. I think we are in agreement that WP:COMMONNAME (ie Recognizably) should be given the most weight, but does not "over rule" the others. I think we are in agreement that Consistency should be given the least weight (in that it can be over done). If I am correct, then perhaps we should express this concept of a difference in weight in the policy? Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No; COMMONNAME can certainly be overdone; every nationalist who can contrive a search result in which the Foolander name gets 27% and the Barlandish name 26% trots it out now. Adding a sentence which enshrines CN will only make this worse.

Nor does Recognizability require "the most common name"; logically, it requires a common name. Otherwise Liriodendron is indefensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that these criteria can be abused...and we do want to be careful how we phrase things to limit that abuse. I think we already at least hint that more weight should be given to Recognizably than on the other criteria (certainly we put more emphasis on it). I was just wondering if we should make it more explicit. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Commonly used vs. recognizable

I haven't been watch this guideline for a while; when did WP:COMMONNAME change from "most common used (in reliable sources)" to "best recognized"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It didn't. Hesperian 00:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

From #Deciding an article title

• Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.

I see Arthur's point. We use patella rather than kneecap because reliable sources favour "patella" over "kneecap". Full stop, end of story. It is not correct to say that we follow reliable sources as a means to a recognizable end: in this case that putative end has not been achieved. Hesperian 02:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't. There are other reliable sources than textbooks on anatomy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you would struggle to make a case that reliable sources favour kneecap over patella.

search term	Google Web	Google Books	Google Scholar
patella knee	707000	3600	63800
kneecap knee	537000	2000	2400
"knee cap"	304000	1568	4380

Patella holds its own in a web search, which consists of relatively more unreliable sources; it holds its own in a book search; and it wins hands down in a scholar search. I concede that many of the articles turned up by a scholar search do not share our values with respect to accessibility, and therefore that column needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. However, I do not have to show that patella wins here; you have to show that knee cap wins. If you cannot, then my point stands that reliable sources do not serve as a means of identifying the most recognizable name. Hesperian 02:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

All I need to say is the obvious; that they do not favor "patella" unless one uses a search biased towards those intended for specialists; as we are not. This policy has always favored the interests of a general audience over those of specialists, in a sentence which has been phased various ways. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The disputed sentence seems to assert that the name most commonly used in reliable sources is the name most likely to be recognised. You seem to be saying that this assertion is only true if we ignore sources that are "intended for specialists". This I will really concede. It follows that, one way or another, there is a problem with that sentence.

It is for this reason that I keep banging on about using reliable sources "that share our values". Usually I am talking about neutrality; here the value we need to check for is accessibility. Hesperian 03:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The first section is phrased to discuss an ideal situation. Ideally, things like this would not happen, and the most common name would be recognizable; but that's a diagnosis, not a defense. Let's try saying that recognizable names are common in reliable sources, leaving most for CommonName below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the idea that we base our titles on sources that "share our values" (whatever that means)... or that we should discount names intended for specialists. We need to consider all reliable English language sources when determining the most commonly used name... both specialist and non-specialist sources. Neutrality requires that we do so. That said... I have no problem with PMA's change. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you're right. "that share our values" is not so much wrong, as redundant: the values we expect them to share with us are the very values that make them reliable. With the exception of target audience, which is moot. Hesperian 14:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

On the specific example: Just counting hits at your favorite web search engine on "knee cap" is going to artificially inflate hits for the lay term because of confusion with knee-capping.

The overlap between these two names is significant: Many patient-oriented sources will provide both names, as seen, e.g., here.

The relevant specific naming convention explicitly prefers names used in "recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources" to terms used in sources that, e.g., have been dumbed down for children. (These things vary, of course, but the proper names for major human bones are typically taught to 12 year olds in most of America.)

I think it is appropriate to consider all reliable sources, but I also believe that it is appropriate to give more weight to the highest quality sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither the OED nor the sources it cites (for "knee-cap", Thomas Huxley and Bosanquet) have been dumbed down for children. Patella has always been a technical, learned, term; knee-cap replaced knee-pan in the middle nineteenth century (the last goes back to Golding's Elizabethan Ovid). One purpose of Recognizability is to keep us from pedantry - of using Latin technica for things which have a perfectly good English name. Have we gone to a feast of languages and stolen the scraps, or are we the English wikipedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, my point is that most of the sources that use "knee cap" exclusively (without even mentioning the formal name) aren't very good sources. OED, of course, mentions both, as do many good sources.

My brief survey indicates that there are more good sources that mention "patella" without mentioning "knee cap" than there are good sources that mention "knee cap" without mentioning "patella". Low-quality sources, on the other hand (e.g., personal blogs) are far more likely to use "knee cap" than "patella". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive titles again

I put in a shortened form of the change I proposed earlier for descriptive titles of:

A descriptive title may also be used for a currently unfolding controversy to ensure the article reflects a neutral point of view

and it was reverted with:

a descriptive title may also" Not always it depends, generally it is not true, and the word may can be taken to mean that permission is given

I don't understand the objection. The express purpose is to show that permission is give as this describes something that is done and passes Afd on a fairly regular basis. Dmcq (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest: "A neutral descriptive title may also be used for an article on a currently unfolding controversy or event, unless reliable sources indicate that there is a widely accepted proper name for the controversy or event (in which case that proper name should be used as the title)."

We want to impress upon our editors that we should never insert our own POV when naming our articles... That cuts both ways. We don't use a non-neutral title unless the sources do... but when they do, then so do we. Blueboar (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's almost the complete opposite of what happens and what I was saying. Using the example of Naming the American Civil War since it is not current to show the problem, during the war it would have been called either 'War of the Rebellion" or "War for Southern Independence' if Misplaced Pages was around at the time. The Northern version would probably have prevailed by a vote saying it was the more common name. The problem is that a title very often does not express both sides of a conflict and is inherently POV. Commonname in effect says we should choose a partisan name in such cases. This doesn't matter too much when the controversy is over and the history books say that is the common name, but for a topic which is currently unfolding doing this just leads to trouble on Misplaced Pages. This is to support NPOV in the article otherwise you get forks and edit wars before you even get to writing content in the article itself. What you wrote would disallow consensus about the title and stop development of the article. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

While the Civil War was raging, the majority of sources on both sides simply called it "the War". Better examples are the Boston Massacre or the Peterloo Massacre. These name were being routinely used within days of the events. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This policy should be compatible with NPOV#Article_titles which I just spotted again. This is referenced in this section and it covers what I was going on about but I missed the reference. I think it should be emphasised a bit better. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Your suggested wording said exactly the opposite of the NPOV policy as far as I can make out Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How so?... my suggested language is based on the last paragraph of NPOV#Article titles, which indicates that if there is a commonly used proper name for a topic we should use it... even if that proper name seems non-neutral. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I misread that. That flatly contradicts what this policy has with 'Attorneygate' or the decision not to use 'Climategate' plus a number of other decisions that have been decided the other way. I think there needs to be a bit of resolution of this point. Personally I think one could use Attorneygate now if it still is the common name but doing what it says for currently developing disputes generally leads to very grave trouble with the article. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a good argument that "Attorneygate" never caught on in enough sources for us to claim that there is a consensus of sources using it as a proper name... "Climategate" is currently a borderline situation... as more and more sources use it, that name is in the process of gaining a consensus usage as a proper name (the question being... where do we draw the line?). The point behind the final paragraph of NPOV#Article titles is that there comes a time when not using a name that has wide usage in the sources becomes a POV action on our part. We should not set our own feelings about what something should be called over rule what the sources say. Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The -gate names also have the disadvantage of being slangy. A respectable reference work can be expected to use formal names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

True (although as a suffix, it has started to appear in standard dictionaries)... but sometimes a name that started as slang becomes the formal name. "Jack the Ripper" started as a slang name coined by the London tabloid press, after all. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

BB has been putting forward my POV, which is the reason I have not replied. But two points, the first is we are not a paper encyclopaedia, so yes we may call something -gate if that is the name given to a political scandal in the short to medium term in reliable sources if in the longer term other "respectable reference work" use other terms then we can move the page to the new title if that is appropriate. The second is given the information in NPOV and this thread, I am not convinced that any additional wording is needed in this policy. -- PBS (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't strike me as particularly complex. Neutrality is non-negotiable. There are two ways to achieve neutrality. If there is an accepted name for the topic, it is neutral to use it. If all names are biased (not in our opinion, but in their usage in reliable sources: each name is adopted by a particular party to reflect their POV; e.g. "right to live" versus "right to choose"), then we have to construct a neutral name ourselves. What Dmcq is driving at is that it is sometimes not easy, in the early stages of a controversial current event, to figure out whether, and to what extent, a name is accepted. This is true, but I think it is unnecessary and unwieldy to talk about controversial current events here.

I would advise some guidance along the lines of what I've just written: that we don't use biased names; that we assess bias by breadth of usage in reliable sources; and that if no names cut the mustard we will construct our own.

Hesperian 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is that simple, take for example Liancourt Rocks we chose a name used in reliable sources (and one where that the library of congress wanted to follow where we had led), but if a neutral name did not exist, I don't think we should have made up our own description, rather we should look at the quality of the sources that use the alternative terms and decide which of (in this case two) is the most commonly used in reliable sources (besides if the names have a bias, then usually at least some reliable sources will use a neutral term). If not then better to choose between them, eg use either at Burma or Myanmar than some neutral construct like "The country on the coast between Thailand and Bangladesh". -- PBS (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... "The Church with the Pope"... ? ... nah. Blueboar (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But there are neutral sources out there, right? Do they call it "The Church with the Pope"? No? They've adopted one of the "biased" names, for convenience, without intending any bias in doing so, right? Hesperian 04:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian, but suspect that PBS isn't wrong either, since in practice, there will (assuming it's a notable subject) always be neutral sources that have their own way of naming something. In other words, we shouldn't have to "construct our own name" (i.e. use a descriptive title) for things which have a name - there will always be neutral sources that we can follow. The only time we need to construct names is when the subject of the article is not some named thing, but some aspect of one or more named things that we find convenient to address on a separate page. In fact the example we currently give in the policy is patently wrong (at least in its phrasing) - "Attorneygate" (if used) would not be a "descriptive title", so the logic was not "uh-oh, descriptive title needed for this one, better make it neutral", it was "Attorneygate, don't like that name, let's use a descriptive title instead". But if Attorneygate was wrong because it was not used in neutral sources, then people should have at least looked to see what term the neutral sources did use instead, and use that, rather than making something up.--Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The descriptive title is only proper if biased sources use "Attorneygate" and neutral sources don't use a name at all. Theoretically this could occur, but in practice neutral sources will surely use a name. Either they will use "Attorneygate" too, or they will use some other name. The name used by neutral sources should be used regardless. Hesperian 09:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the "tsunami" example (assuming it's even valid - is "tidal wave" really still more common?) doesn't belong in that section either - it's nothing to do with descriptive titles. Some rearrangement is clearly required around that part of the page.--Kotniski (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Which I have made a first attempt at doing with my edits just now.--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have taken it a bit further... removing the attorneygate example completely... and creating a new sub-section on choosing between descriptive titles and common names... which incorporates what is stated at WP:NPOV#Article titles. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with including the material from WP:NPOV#Article titles, but I absolutely don't agree with taking out the "Attorneygate" example. We should at all costs avoid political nicknames as being both non-descriptive and non-neutral. On the non-descriptive side, -gate snowclones are completely uninformative about the subject matter. A case in point - what would you think the nickname "Spygate" was about? It's been applied to four different controversies in as many years. "Attorneygate" tells you merely that it's something to do with attorneys. Each of those nicknames requires some prior knowledge of what the underlying subject matter is. Someone who had never heard of the "Dismissal of US Attorneys controversy" could tell you from that article title, without reading the article, that it was a controversy about the dismissal of US Attorneys. "Attorneygate" by itself is meaningless unless you already know the context. Likewise "Betsygate", "Pinotgate" and any number of other -gates.

Second, the fundamental problem with -gate nicknames is that they are inherently non-neutral. Read -gate: "The suffix is used to embellish a noun or name to suggest the existence of a far-reaching scandal. As a CBC News Online column noted in 2001, the term may "suggest unethical behaviour and a cover-up"." Using such terminology biases an article from the outset - it adopts the terminology used by one side in a controversy. It often prejudges the outcome of a controversy, casting it as a "far-reaching scandal" even if it turns out to be nothing of the sort. The -gate suffix is a political weapon used by one side to tar the other with guilt by association (William Safire set the pattern by coining dozens of -gate terms for every minor controversy affecting Democrats). Removing this prohibition will result in endless fights between partisans. One of the reasons why it was adopted in the first place was to avoid such quarrels.

Third, removing this prohibition ignores the fact that the media has different goals from an encyclopedia. Headline writers and journalists like -gate nicknames because they're snappy, they cut down on word counts and (often) because the nickname advances the political goals of the media outlet. (For instance, The Sun came up with "Betsygate" to attack the wife of the British Conservative leader at a time when the newspaper was opposed to the Tories. Similarly Democrat outlets came up with "Attorneygate" to attack the Republicans.) We're meant to be neutral and we're not aiming for sensationalist headlines or article titles. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this "-gate" thing has become so hackneyed that people (or at least, neutral reliable people, which are the only ones we're suggesting following) now use it in a rather tongue-in-cheek way, and it doesn't imply any actual serious wrongdoing. As far as I'm concerned, if we reject a name like "Climategate" it's more because it's the wrong register than because it's not neutral. (Though I know a lot of people wouldn't agree with me on that.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's hackneyed and tiresomely unoriginal (the example of Spygate is a case in point) but that doesn't mean it doesn't have political impact. It's fundamentally about framing - creating a pattern of thought which, through repetition, becomes established as the common narrative. It's a standard approach for public relations professionals. I strongly suggest that you read Framing (social sciences)#Politics, which highlights the importance of terminology in shaping a narrative. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, you miss the point here. Your concerns would be valid if we were to create our own descriptive title containing "-gate" ... but that is not what we are talking about. Titles such as "Attorneygate", "Climategate", "Spygate", Betsygate etc. are not descriptive titles, they are proper names ... no different than Tea Pot Dome scandal, Boston massacre, Peterloo massacre, or Jack the Ripper. According to WP:NPOV#Article titles, when a name is used by a consensus of sources then we should use it. The only question is whether that name is used by a limited group, or by a consensus of sources.

WP:NPOV#Article titles makes it clear that it does not matter whether a proper name is non-neutral or contains non-neutral terms or suffixes... proper names are often non-neutral... the term "massacre" is non-neutral... so is the term "scandal"... so is the term "ripper". What matters is whether the name is used by a consensus of sources. If so we should use that name... if not, then we are free to use other names (or, to invent a descriptive title of our own).

Now, there is a good argument to be made that most "-gate" names have not achieved the level of acceptance and usage required to say that there is a consensus of sources. That is a valid argument. But to say that we should not use them because they are non-neutral is not a valid argument. To put it bluntly: Proper names do not need to be neutral.

To be honest, I don't particularly like the "-gate" suffix myself. I think it is way over used... but... the heart of NPOV is that we should not let our personal POV about things impact our writing. We should not impose our own POV over that of the sources. In other words... when a consensus of sources uses a "-gate" name, it is POV on our part to reject it. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The flaw in that logic is that -gate names are not proper names. They're fundamentally different from all of the other examples you mention. "Tea Pot Dome scandal" was a scandal about a place called Tea Pot Dome. The Boston and Peterloo massacres were mass killings at those places. Those are descriptive names. "Jack the Ripper" in a different category; it's a personal nickname coined by the person who claimed to be the infamous serial killer. -gate names are in a different category again; they're not proper names but neologisms coined to convey a specific political message. A scandal or a massacre is a generic thing. An Attorneygate or a Spygate is not. Adopting a political neologism is, as I've said above, fundamentally incompatible with NPOV's requirement for article titles "to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality", since it immediately adopts the narrative of one side in a controversy. As NPOV says, "Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints." Adopting one viewpoint at the outset is a fundamental contradiction of this principle. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But if neutral sources are adopting that narrative (which is the situation we're suggesting), then it's un-neutral of us to reject it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If neutral sources are adopting one side's narrative, then they're not neutral, are they? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be neutral... we do. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes one "side" is simply right. We can't make that judgement ourselves, but if unbiased reliable sources are consistently making it, then we can and should follow.--Kotniski (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I think a better way to put it would be: "independent sources". Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"The flaw in that logic is that -gate names are not proper names." I see some wriggling here ChrisO :-) What about the use of Whig party from the nickname that came about because of the Whiggamore Raid or the Tory party party named after some Irish terrorists freedom fighters pursued men? -- PBS (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

More on descriptive titles vs proper name titles

I want to expand on a distinction that I alluded to in the previous thread... the difference between our using a non-neutral term in a descriptive title and our using a non-neutral proper name.

To move us away from the "gate" debate... let's use examine another potentially non-neutral term... "massacre". We often get arguments over articles that are entitled "X massacre". There are a lot of problems with using this particular term in an article title... If no sources describes the event as a massacre then the title would violate NOR. A wikipedian has made the unsourced claim that the event was a massacre. If sources use the term "massacre" descriptively (ie if they describe the event as being a massacre) then the the use in a title is also descriptive. And it would be POV for a Wikipedian to create a non-neutral descriptive title. However, if a source uses the term as part of a name for the event (as is done with the Boston massacre), then the situation changes. It is not OR or POV to entitle an article on something with its proper name. And proper names do not need to be neutral. and if enough sources use it as a name, it becomes POV for us to reject it.

The key when it comes to titling articles is discerning who is applying the term, and whether it is being applied descriptively or as part of a name. If it is used descriptively, then we need to be neutral and not use it. If it is used as a name then we need to determine whether that name is common... and it is used by enough sources, we need to be neutral and use it ourselves. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd basically agree with that, though with a large dose of common sense; sometimes something really was a massacre, and reliable sources confirm that beyond reasonable doubt - in that situation there's nothing un-neutral in our using the word in our descriptive title.--Kotniski (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I was saying about currently unfolding controversy was trying for this sort of thing. After things die down then if a name with 'massacre' in it is still being used then it is the name and that's that. However during the event such names start off as being descriptive. I don't quite follow the last bit about proper names though. Is 'Attorneygate' descriptive or not? I would have thought it was someone's idea of a proper name. Dmcq (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Groan lets not go there! -- For the uninitiated please see the top boxes at Talk:List of events named massacres -- Kotniski "massacre" carries far too much POV to construct an NPOV name, even more so for any of the areas where ArbCom have ruled on national disputes, for this to be left to editorial judgement (just look at Drogheda still controversial after all these years). To bring it into an area where there is recent American and British involvement should: the Second Battle of Fallujah have been listed as a massacre in the old List of massacres as the Fallujah Massacre? The same thing happens with the use of the term terrorist attack. There are usually dozens of articles written with the term "terrorist" in the title. If it is the common name for the event then we should use it, but 99 times out of 100 within a short time event events like "9/11" do not end up with the word terrorist in the name in most reliable sources. It is because of this phenomenon (reliable sources tending to use non bias names), or over time the name looses it capacity to shock, that usually the common name in reliable sources is the best fit for Misplaced Pages articles and we do not need to consider NPOV most of the time. -- PBS (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that "-gates" are different... they are always coined as proper names. I suppose one could argue that if a Wikipedian were to coin a new and original "-gate" title for an article (one not used in sources) then he/she is using the suffix descriptively (ie describing the event as a "gate" type scandal)... such a title should, however, be challenged as being an OR neologism, so it does not really matter whether it is descriptive or not.

As for "Attorneygate", it certainly is used by the sources as a proper name. So, it does not matter whether "Attorneygate" is POV... what matters is whether it is a name that enjoys the "consensus of the sources"... is it used by enough sources that we can call it the accepted common name for the event? I would agree that this is doubtful. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. It is a nickname and a neologism, often in such cases coined by partisans to convey a specific political message and frame an issue in a particular way. Adopting such a nickname is a fundamental violation of NPOV's requirement to exhibit "the highest degree of neutrality". In this circumstance, blindly following what sources say is not the way forward, because Misplaced Pages has an additional requirement - that of neutrality - which sources do not. A media outlet using "Attorneygate" (or any other -gate nickname) is not under any obligation to present an issue neutrally. We are. That's the difference, which you haven't taken into account. And as I've said before, using -gate nicknames is also fundamentally non-descriptive - they tell you little or nothing about what the issue is.

You also need to consider the practical effects of removing this prohibition. -gate nicknames were deprecated in the first place because they provoked a huge amount of partisan fighting between editors. There was a lot of controversy about whether the dismissal of US attorneys controversy should be titled Attorneygate (which Democrats favoured) or whether the Killian documents controversy should be titled Rathergate (which Republicans favoured). Deprecating -gate nicknames had the effect of making both sides agree on a descriptive title that did not favour either side's POV. The -gate nicknames were still used for redirects, so nobody lost out. This practice has been in place, stable and working well for a long time. If it's not broken why change it and go back to the bad old days?

The bottom line is that you are proposing a major change to a long-standing, well-understood and effective approach, which will result in very disruptive wrangles across a range of articles. It needs much more exposure than it has had here and I don't think it's acceptable for one or two editors to decide such a change by themselves. At the very least, it needs to be specifically highlighted and discussed on Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view. I might be amenable to a solution that continued to deprecate -gate nicknames, but I strongly oppose any attempt to lift this deprecation. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I most definitely am proposing a major change to long standing policy... I am proposing that we change this policy so that it conforms with an even longer standing core policy... WP:NPOV. This isn't about the term Attorneygate. There are lots of reasons why "Attorneygate" should not be the title of that particular article (for example, you are absolutely correct when you note that "Attorneygate is a neologism... more importantly, it is a name that isn't widely used by a consensus of the sources)... but those are not the reasons discussed in the example. And the reason that is discussed in the example (that we should not use that term because the term is non-neutral) is incorrect. Because Attorneygate is a proper name, and because names can be non-neutral, the one question we don't ask is whether that name is neutral. Instead we ask other questions... especially "has the name been used by enough reliable sources for us to say that it has been adopted by a consensus of sources?" In the case of vast majority of the "-gate" names, the answer to that question is going to be "no". Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless it is proposed that NPOV section on naming is moved from the NPOV article into this one (and it has fairly recently been suggested on the talk page of NPOV), I suggest we keep a short description here of the contents of that section and place a {{main}} template at the top in this policy's section to Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Article titles so that the wording here an not be seen as contradiction the NPOV section. -- PBS (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not worried about the wording being slightly different... as long as the concepts being presented don't contradict. Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am, for the same reason as with WP:ATT, one must be given the lead and the other must defer, so that it is clear which is the definitive text. Without over time they will diverge and then who is to say which is the correct guidance without yards of text and man-hours of discussions? Just look at the fun and games over "Self-identifying names" which occur(red) because there was a divergence between this policy page and a guideline, so much more fun can be had and expected when the wording of polices diverge! -- PBS (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Further up this page I said

"t makes no difference whether or not "Canadian navy" is a name or a description; so long as it is the best title according to our principles, we use it. It has previously been proposed here that we should never choose a descriptive title if a name is available. That is wrong. If a name is available but reliable sources consistently ignore it in favour of a particular descriptive phrase, then that descriptive phrase is what we should be using. You might argue that such a phrase thereby becomes a name, which only supports my assertion that the distinction is mostly spurious."

I stand by that. The distinction between name and description is spurious. If reliable sources consistently use a particular word or phrase to refer to a topic, then we do the same. If reliable sources have not settled on a particular word or phrase to refer to a topic, then we have to make something up ourselves. Arguing about whether a title is a description or a name is utterly pointless. Hesperian 23:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, because NPOV covers descriptive titles it dos not cover names. If it did then we would obviously immediately move American Revolutionary War to the American war of independence, not to mention (so I am) the more blatant Patriot (American Revolution) which manages bias in both name and disambiguation extension. -- PBS (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV covers our own construction of titles in cases where neutral reliable sources do not appear to have a name for the topic. See? I can say the same thing without introducing a spurious distinction. Hesperian 01:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If it were "neutral reliable sources" we would have to remove all national published sources (because they have or can be seen to have a national POV which is can be seen as not neutral) and then we would be able to have lots of descriptive names as there would be no sources at all for lots of subjects :-) We use reliable sources, and do not usually test then for their neutrality as that is a very slippery concept when it comes to deciding on the name of a subject. For example should all American sources that use the term "Patriot" be ignored in favour of the term used by English language sources such as Australian, as Australia did not take part in the conflict? Also what about a book first published in America and then published in Australia does that then go from being a biased source to a less biased source? -- PBS (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, "All editors and reliable sources have biases", we may as well give up and shut the site down! Or we could use a little more subtlety of mind than you're advocating here, and get along just fine. Hesperian 01:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And the proposal that the American Revolution be titled in "neutral" Australian English is a reductio ad absurdum of the whole argument here. Australian English is not neutral on this point - although it may well be divided; furthermore, we are agreed (WP:ENGVAR is one of the few genuine agreements in the MOS) not to use it for that article. The question whether the American Revolution (or, for that matter, the Glorious Revolution) is a revolution in the sense which has prevailed since 1789 is the sort of question that we are not supposed to ask; if, outside Misplaced Pages, it produces a change of name, we should observe the change, and act accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding duplication with WP:NPOV

Since we're rapidly reaching a situation where we have sections on two different pages striving to say exactly the same thing, I've made a suggestion on what to do about it at WT:NPOV#Neutrality and article titles. Please comment there.--Kotniski (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad titles

User:B9 hummingbird hovering has been creating many articles with titles such as Sixfold Expanse of Samantabhadra (kun tu bzang po klong drug). I have asked him/her to stop, based on my interpretation of WP:Article titles and WP:MoS. S/he has refused. Who is correct? Abductive (reasoning) 08:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A1 applies. I will support you if it needs to go to AfD. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It may come to that. Abductive (reasoning) 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that it does not matter what you call an article if it is not a notable topic; if it has not been the subject of reliable, third party sources then it is questionable whether (a) the topic exists at all (other than in the minds of a few individuals) and, even if it does, (b) whether it is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages as as standalone topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive titles and neutrality

Blueboar & Kotniski what do you think were the advantages to the changes you made that ChrisO reversed? ChrisO what did you see as the detrimental changes in their collective edits? -- PBS (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments below. Specifically, the removal of the deprecation of polemical nicknames for current affairs. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

POV and proper names

If Chris O is correct in his assertion that proper names must be neutral... we should change the titles of the following:

• Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot should be retitled: Al Franken's opinion about Rush Limbaugh
• Parliament of Whores should be retitled: P. J. O'Rourke's view of Washington DC

Also...

• Reign of Terror should be retitled: Controversy over arrest and guillotining of many people in France (1793 - 1794)
• World Series should be retitled: Major League Baseball Championship Series

I would go on... but that would be pointy. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the focus of my concern. I was specifically expressing a concern at your attempt to remove the long-standing deprecation of -gate nicknames. The examples you give are nothing to do with that. The first two are book titles (so of course we use those), the third is a long-standing historical name and the fourth is a long-standing common name. They do not present problems because they are (in the first two instances) the names of particular works and (in the latter two instances) long-standing names about which there is no controversy. What I am specifically focusing on is the use of polemical nicknames about current affairs. Avoiding these in article titles has been a convention on Misplaced Pages since well before you became an editor. I suggest that the solution we should be looking at is some approach which specifically tackles that issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT the section on descriptive names was added with this very big edit on 9 October 2009. As I have said elsewhere I do not think that replicating wording between two policies is a good idea, as it leads to problems over which is that authentic text ..., however that is a different problem from the on you are describing here ChrisO, if this section did not exist before October last year where was the prohibition on using -gate prior to that? -- PBS (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's been around for a lot longer than that. The edit you highlight is a merge from somewhere else. The confusion is understandable - this page has been hacked around so much in the last 6 months that it's hard to tell where all the pieces of it came from. The deprecation of -gate names was originally part of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions, which was merged into this page, and it's been a standing convention since at least the start of 2006. I'm not sure when it was codified into policy - I believe some time around 2006-07 - but it's certainly been standing practice for over four years. I recall discussions at the start of 2006 about the White House travel office controversy, which some editors wanted to call Travelgate, but which was given a neutral descriptive title in accordance with what was already a well-established convention even at that early date. (And a good thing too; "Travelgate" was later reused for a South African political controversy.) As I said, the issue is specifically about the use of polemical nicknames for current (or in that particular case, recent) events. This is distinct from Blueboar's contention that "proper names must be neutral". We're talking about a much more narrowly defined issue - specifically that of polemical nicknames. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is page is not a merge with Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions is was a rename through a page move. The edit on the 9 October (which I have highlighted above) merged several guidelines into this policy page, in principle I supported that merge, but in the merge Kotniski made an editorial judgement on what to include. He missed out the "-gate guidance" which was in Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict. Until this week I had not thought through the implication of moving a guidance recommendation into this policy page and the potential conflict with NPOV, and until you raised it I don't think anyone who regularly edits this page had considered the "-gate guidance". For ease of use here is what Naming conflict said:

Descriptive names

See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Article naming

Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

For instance, a recent political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the George W. Bush administration. The article discussing the controversy is, however, at the more neutrally worded title Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject.

See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.

--PBS (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down the original text. Note that "Attorneygate" broke in December 2006. The use of "recent controversy" clearly indicates that the codification of the -gate deprecation came shortly afterwards, probably in response to a dispute over the title of Dismissal of US Attorneys controversy. As I said, though, it was already common practice well before then. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, you continue to miss the point: "-gate" is not a descriptive title, it is a Proper Name (yes, nicknames are also Proper Names... for example Bill is a nickname for William). Proper names are not required to be neutral.... that goes for proper names that end in "-gate" just as much as any other proper name. To be used as a Misplaced Pages title, a non-neutral proper name requires usage by a consensus of sources. As I said before, the vast majority of events named "-gate" will not pass that test... but... if and when one does, then it becomes POV on your part to reject it. If you wish to use a "-gate" suffix name as an example of this limitation, that is fine... at least we would be doing so for the right reason. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (by the way... did anyone else pick up on the Paradox that a "long standing" example discusses something that is objectionable because it is apparently a "neologism".) Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Using "Attorneygate" as an example

I am removing this again... I am not arguing that "Attorneygate" is an acceptable title (I agree that it isn't), but the stated reasons for why it is unacceptable are flawed. "Attorneygate" is unacceptable because that name is not used in enough reliable sources that discuss the event, not because a Misplaced Pages editor invented a more neutral descriptive title. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What is meant by 'enough' in this context? Are we talking about absolute majorities or a majority compared to other names? Anyway what other names are there for it? I'm not quite certain what the meaning of majority is in the description of proper names. Also I'd be perfectly happy with a name like Attorneygate now if it was mentioned in post event accounts. The big problem I see is not how much a name is accepted but how much it isn't accepted which is quite a different thing, more like a blackball vote. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the choice of article title can't be made via a process of Blackballing, else it may never be possible to agree on an appropriate title at all. Also, arguing that one title is better than another is simply going to lead to a very long thread, with competing claims backed up by competing sources, and it will never be clear what consensus has been reached from such a thread.
The way I would imagine such a dispute to be resolved, in say a mediation case, is to line up, side by side, the top 10 sources (or even just the to 2 or 3 sources) supporting one article title or another, and making a comparison of the sources in terms of quality criteria listed in WP:GNG, i.e. the level signficant coverage, the reliability of the sources. Only by making such a direct comparison can an informed view be reached. So for example, if there are 100 trivial mentions of ""Attorneygate", that would not compare as well with, say, a well written academic journal that supports an alternative term to "Attorneygate" (if one exists). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the standard should be "acceptance" and not "rejection". WP:NPOV uses the phrase "a consensus of reliable sources" when addressing the issue of non-neutral names. To me a "consensus" implies more than a simple majority (whether absolute or comparative) but not necessarily unanimity.

I think that the comparison to how we determine notability is apt... to some extent, the question we are determining is not only whether the topic is notable, but also whether it is notable by a particular name. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think 'Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy' is a notable name compared to 'Attorneyate'! In fact I don't think notability has an awful lot to do with titles at all, a good name is nice but there's other important things that come first. Developing an article on the topic is far more important for instance than causing a holy war with the title. Especially when one can use redirects to handle the queries on other names. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not comparative (just as "other stuff exists" is not a valid rational for saying that X is or is not notable... saying "other names exist" is not a valid rational for saying that a particular name is or is not notable). But I think Dmcq is right... while you can make an analogy to notability, that analogy is flawed enough that we should not pursue it. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, where a topic is newly emerging, then notability is going to be a factor, because there is not much source material to work from, other than news reports, whose headlines are not always the best source of titles, as headlines change as the story develops. If I was a mediator in this case, I would tend to look to weightier publications, such as published books or academic reviewed journals, neither of which mention "Attorneygate" at all. I am not familiar with the sources in this article, and so there may be evidence going the other way, but I think article titles and notability are closely aligned, since well established topics tend to provide a wider range of sources in support of one (or two) titles.
Although the secondary sources do not seem to be of direct help either, they seem to indirectly indicate those primary sources that are important. The journal that I have just cited itself cites the Congressional hearings on the "Dismissals of U.S. Attorneys" and "U.S. Attorney Controversy" which do suggest that these titles are favoured by external sources, and do mark as useful reference point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

None of which negates my original point... we have gotten off track by focusing on the term "Attorneygate". The paragraph that I object to is worded as follows:

• Occasionally a neutral descriptive title may be used even when one or more names for the topic exist, if it is felt that none of those names is neutral. For instance, a political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the government, but the article title is the more neutrally worded Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. (bolding mine)

There are lots of valid reason to not use "Attorneygate". There are valid reasons to use the current descriptive title. But the fact that "Attorneygate" is not neutral isn't a valid reason. That is where the example goes wrong. The reason why the example is flawed is that... IF, at some point in the future, the name "Attorneygate" gains acceptance by a consensus of reliable sources... then true neutrality will require us to change the title of the article... despite the fact that the name is non-neutral. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not at some point in the future significant coverage from reliable secondary sources may lead to a change in title of the article, I cannot judge without a crystall ball. However, since most of the coverage of the scandal hangs around the Congressional Hearings, and those hearings have already been the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, then the current title appears to me to have externally validated, and is unlikely to change any time soon. I think this example, if it does not prove, it certainly does illustrate, how consensus on article titles is arrived at: by examining all of the relevant sources, and comparing them to see which ones carry more weight in terms of significant coverage and the reliability of sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Would Climategate be a better example? I'm a bit loath to bring it up as it is still current. Dmcq (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No... I would also object to using "climategate" as an example... and for the same reasons. Whether we should title that article "Climategate" or not depends primarily on whether "Climategate" is used by a consensus of reliable sources or not. I would agree that the quality of those reliable sources is also something to consider. But the one thing that is not a factor is whether the name is neutral or non-neutral.

It isn't the specific example that is the problem... any example would be a problem... the problem lies in the underlying statement, not the example. Blueboar (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Any example with "gate" on the end would not be a good example, as it sounds like a temporary journalistic invention, and I think most editors would tend take such titles with a pinch of salt. Choosing an article title using trivial coverage is never going to make good guidance.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a question of finding a good example... there is no good example. This is because the entire paragraph was flawed. The policy is better without it. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed wording about descriptive titles and neutrality

For anyone who's interested, I'm trying to produce a proposed simultaneous rewording for the titles section of WP:NPOV and the descriptive titles/neutrality section of this page. Assistance/comments welcome at User:Kotniski/Neu.--Kotniski (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your draft for AT is acceptable... your draft for NPOV is not. Explained on the draft's talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I must agree. I see no advantage to changing - and (whether or not you mean it) sentences from your draft will be used against established names like Boston massacre. Use of Gdanzig as an example is not at all wise; there is no consensus, merely a stalemate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained at the talk page of the draft, I'm happy for the Boston massacre examples to be put back (I'm not suggesting that my current wording is in any way perfect). I don't think that what I've said about Gdanzig is at all controversial except possibly among extremists (and given that the subject is neutrality, any good example we give is going to be contested by extremists), but again, I'm not insisting on using any particular example or wording.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this has swung too much back towards "use the most common name even if it is grossly biased". I accept the arguments above in favour of that position. But on the other hand, the fact remains that "attorneygate" is not used because some people feel the name is spin. I don't think any of you guys really believe that "attorneygate" was rejected because it was "felt not to have become sufficiently established in good sources"; so why would we say it? Hesperian 10:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the only legitimate reason (that would be accepted by the community at large if the matter were up to them apart from a small minority with a POV). Good sources", of course, is open to a high degree of interpretation.--Kotniski (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to talk about our own opinions at this stage rather than try and speak for others, otherwise we might start assuming things that aren't true. The business about a consensus of sources doesn' really work for Climategate and I think the distinction between names and descriptions is a bit artificial, all titles are supposed to be descriptive enough for identification, just saying B-52 for instance isn't really good enough. Possibly the article should be called Climategate eventually as opposed to Attorneygate where not enough people used that but it is still better to call it the long name for the mooment like the AfDs say. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why in the world does "this business about a consensus of sources" not work for Climategate (or any other "-gate")? Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am mistified too, and I find it hard to take Hesperian's statement at face value. The term's provenance in terms of who penned it first and in what context has not been established. It might be cited by journalists, but who actually coined the phrase and in what context is not known. This appears to be a classic example of WP:NEO. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters who coined the term or what the context was... what matters is if enough other (reliable) sources pick up on the term and use it. When does a neologism stop being a neologism? Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It does, because the article is about a neologism, not just mentioning it. To quote WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms: To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term.
I realise that this whole area of neologism is one that is already dealt with, so if we give any examples, we may wish to point any related example at WP:NEO. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, no... to be an article about a neologism, the article would have to be about the word "climategate" (its etymology, meaning and usage)... I would agree that we should not have an article about the word "climategate", just as we should not have an article on the word "Massacre" (instead that page is a dab page with a link to Wiktionary.)

However... as a potential article title the term redirects to an article "about" an event... or rather a series of events that form a controversy (specifically the Climatic Research Unit email controversy). Thus, the article is not "about" a neologism.... it is an article about an event, that might be titled with a neologism.

Thus, the section of WP:NEO that comes closest to applying is Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms#Articles titled with neologisms... which states: In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

However, if "a consensus of sources" use the term, this would indicate that there is an accepted short-hand term that exists. So the advice given in that section would no longer apply. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it does, for would how a complete lack of coverage about the term "Climategate" itself indicate that it is the correct title? Another way of looking at this is that an article about a neologism is also an article about a topic where a neologism is used as the title. I think this is a good example of a non-neutral label: even when it is used widely, the title "Climategate" conveys to readers an implied viewpoint: that this is a scandal similar to Watergate. Neologisms are a fancy way of labeling topics as one group of people see it. The fact that a term is accepted by one group but not another is a good indicator that it may not be neutral. That is why significant coverage about the title would be needed to establish its credentials as a widely recognised title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see your logic - if calling it Climategate implies something, and reliable (which in this case means, among other things, unbiased) sources are calling it Climategate, then whatever it is that Climategate implies is being implied by those reliable sources, and therefore it's right and proper for us to imply it as well.--Kotniski (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My reading of NPOV#Article titles is that that non-neutral names that have been used by a consensus of sources should be considered an exception to WP:LABEL. The word "massacre" in Boston Massacre is, after all, also a non-neutral label... It too was coined to convey to the reader an implied viewpoint. The name was initially coined by partisan political pamphleteers trying to promote outrage among their fellow colonists.

If we were holding this discussion back in the early 1770s, I am sure we would be having heated debates about how to title the article on that event. Editors would be (correctly in my view) arguing that the article should be titled with the more neutral descriptive title of "Boston, Massachusetts shootings controversy". After all, it really is POV to call an event where only five people were killed a massacre"

Yet, today we don't use a neutral descriptive title for the article on that event. Instead we use a non-neutral name. So what changed? What makes a name that would have been unacceptable then now acceptable. What makes the name Boston massacre acceptable today? My answer is... the fact that the non-neutral name has been accepted and used by a consensus of reliable sources.

My point is that "X-gate" is no different than "X-massacre". We can argue about whether a non-neutral name has been accepted by a consensus of sources, but not about what to do once it has been accepted. If and when it has been accepted, we should use it. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Kotniski that we can just accept a title because it is the subject of reliable source; how can a mere mention of the term "Climategate" itself indicate that it is the correct title? I think we need more evidence than trivial coverage to accept the term. Using Blueboar's example for a moment, whether a massacre involves 5 or 500 people, its never going to be a neutral term, but I think it is widely accepted in circumstances that involve the slaughter of defenceless civilians, and acceptance of the term spans several hundred years and many unfortunate events that have been the subject of significant coverage to justify its use. Although adding "gate" to an word is not so serious, nonetheless any claim that a scandal was on a par with Watergate, even if it were only indirectly implied in the title (and then only weakly or in jest), would require the same sort of coverage as the documentation of a massacre. I just don't see the depth of coverage in the Climategate article that documents the affair on a par with Watergate in accordance with WP:REDFLAG; I think any reasonable editor would have have to take this neologism with a pinch of salt. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that if "climategate" (like "Boston massacre") is used in conjunction with the event for a long enough time, then it would be acceptable? (in other words, is it your view that acceptability of non-neutral names is based on time of usage and not volume of usage?) If so, this gets back to a question I raised earlier... when is a neologism no longer a neologism? A year? Five years? 100 years? Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, if has not been the subject of significant coverage. Yes, if, in accordance with WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms, it "has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable, then a fairly newly coined term may be the simplest and most natural way to refer to the concept. In this case that newly coined term may be the best title for the article, provided the use of the term is verifiable". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that a "-gate" term might be an acceptable title for an article, if that term has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable. You simply don't think the specific term "Climategate" has met that standard. Fine. In essence we agree: Article titles are not determined by whether a name is neutral or non-neutral, but by a different standard. One that has to do with usage/coverage in reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'd only add that there's a reason a non-neutral title is okay: we've got an entire article to discuss how all sides view the term. If there's no discussion, then a non-neutral title isn't okay with me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the WikiJargon from this section.

"Neutral" has a very specific meaning on Misplaced Pages, as defined in WP:NPOV. Whatever the sources say is "WP:Neutral", even if some people consider the sources' choice of terms to be patently offensive or flat wrong. Using this word to describe anything else is confusing to editors and IMO should be strictly avoided in Misplaced Pages's advice pages.

What this section describes is not WP:Neutrality (=following the sources, even if you think the sources are leading us right over the cliff); in fact, it is entirely about what to do when you don't follow the sources. This page recommends that when you don't follow the sources, that you choose titles that are inoffensive and non-judgmental.

English has perfectly good words for those concepts that don't conflict with the WikiJargon; let's use those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. From the above comment, I was inclined to disagree. But on reviewing the diff, WhatamIdoing is absolutely right here. Hesperian 22:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with the post. Non-judgmentalism writing in a neutral tone, is part of WP:NPOV; it's one of the distinctions between WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. But the edit is right; we need not make that point here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No objections from me. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So are we saying 'Boston Massacre' is a common name not a description because it has entered general usage, 'Climategate' is a common name but..., actually I can't see why Climategate isn't preferred according to the current wording. It isn't like tidal wave compared to tsunami. Dmcq (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

With the current wording we no longer directly address this question ... the argument is that "Climategate", as a name, has not (yet) met the threshold that would require us to use it over some other title (such as a descriptive title).

We seem to have some disagreement on what that threshold is, and how to word it... but at least we seem have agreed that a threshold exists. That is a step in the right direction, as it moves us closer to being in sync with WP:NPOV#Article titles. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In which case, I think the threshold for using a non-neutral name has to be higher quality evidence that the term is widely accpeted than would normally be the case, the direct analogy being WP:REDFLAG in relation to extraordinary claims or strongly held opinions. Perhaps some guideance along the lines of the following would be appropriate:

If topic has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable, then the term that is simplest and most direct way of refering to the concept in the article title should be apparent. In this case that newly coined term may be the best title for the article, provided the use of the term is verifiable.

However, were the title is not neutral, highly novel (e.g. a neologism) or is likely to be challenged for other reason, then high-quality sources are required to demonstrate that a particular article title is acceptable to the world at large.

I realise that contemporary subjects, higly novel and controversial titles are likey to have been coined by just one person, rather than to have emerged from multiple sources. To demonstrate that such a article title is being used my more than one source or group of related sources, I think the burden of evidence needs to be capable of withstand the accusation that the choice of title is purely personal or partisan. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... this might be OK... Suppose we do add it, how would editors interpret it? Let's think of some examples of non-neutral names and see whether they would or would not qualify as an article title under this language. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral title

One possibly non-neutral article title: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. here's been some discussion about that at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#The Wiki Title Violates Neutrality. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... good point... so do we have high quality sources that we can use to justify that title? (I hope so). Blueboar (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this example sort of proves my point, that high quality sources are needed to justify an article title that is likely to be challenged. Just because numerous sources use the term "conspiracy" is not sufficient reason to use this term in the title, becasue there is no proof that a conspiracy exists. Conspiracy theorists would say "of course a conspiracy exists", but I don't think we should allow article titles to be based on hearsay, even if that hearsay is cited by reliable soruces.
It seems to me that there has to proof that a conspiracy actually exists for the title to stick; unfounded allegations are merely labels which contain opinions that may not have any real justification. It seems to me that the title is sensationalist rather than substantive, and that the coverage of term consiracy is trival, rather than significant: there needs to be a source that specifically identifies the "conspiracy theories" as a subject of significant coverage per se to justify the title. Putting lots of trivial coverage together, and claim "here is your proof that conspiracy theories exist" is an example of stretching the facts to fit the theory. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For me, the use of the term "conspiracy theories" implies that the conspiracies do not actually exist. But I agree it's not a good title - it ought to use a word like "controversy" or "claims".--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to question whether that is actually an example of a non-neutral title... if someone theorizes that a conspiracy exists, that theory is (by definition) a "conspiracy theory". No? Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The topic of that particular article is not theorization about whether or not a conspiracy exists. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct... it says that the theories do exist, and that these theories claim that a conspiracy exists ... hence they are "Conspiracy theories". Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And the lead sentence of the article says, "Conspiracy theories about the citizenship of Barack Obama are ideas that reject the legitimacy of President Obama's citizenship and his eligibility to be President of the United States." I don't see how this article title can be seen in any way other than as implicitly passing judgment on the subject of such ideas.

Actually, I'm doubtful that many, if any, of those holding such ideas claim that a conspiracy exists. The only such conspiracies I've seen purported have been offered up as strawmen. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think the title is a good example of WP:LABEL: an article title that "conveys to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral".
The significant coverage given to real world events suggests that the subject matter of this article is that Barack Obama's nationality has been the subject of legal challenge which have failed. There is lots of trivial coverage to show that rebuttle of those challenges has resulted in accusations from various plaintiffs that their legal actions failed becuase there is a conspiracy. If this article title where to go to meditiation, I am sure the significant coverage would be given more weight that the trivial coverage, even if the sources for both came from reliable secondary sources. It seems to me that undue weight has been given to trivial coverage when the choice of title was made, despite the fact that it is Barack Obama's nationality or his eligabilty for high office that is the real subject matter of this article.

I think that the following amendment to the section on descriptive titles might be helpful:

Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. If a title is not neutral, or is highly novel (e.g. a neologism), or is likely to be challenged for any other reason, then that is a redflag that should prompt editors to examine the sources for their choice of article title.

Descriptive titles should only be used where directly supported by significant coverage from reliable sources that demonstrate undue weight is not being given to a particular viewpoint. If such sources are not available, then that title should be discarded in favour of a neutral title, even if it is less recognizable.

For example, the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law that have not yet been proven in a court of law. See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.

I think this makes the point that neutrality is the baseline we start from, in line with WP:NPOV. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, To look at the same issue in a less political article... take a look at Masonic conspiracy theories. The term seems to be used quite neutrally there. In fact the article goes out of its way not to pass judgment on these theories, either for or against. Blueboar (talk)

Good point and good example. Perhaps the content of the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, if that title is retained, would be beter if rewritten similarly. As the content is currently written, that title strkes me as inappropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly... I think it is impossible to make sweeping statement about the use of non-neutral terms in titles. Non-neutral terms in titles need to be examined on a case by case basis... because sometimes they are actually used neutrally (as in the case of "Boston massacre" or in the case of "Masonic conspiracy theories"), and sometimes they are not. When they are not used neutrally, sometimes (I will even say most of the time) the best solution is to change the title... but sometimes (occasionally) the best solution is to rewrite and refocus the article in a way that makes the title neutral (this would be my choice with the Obama citizenship article). Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So in fact there would be no artificial distinction between common name and descriptive title, just we should choose the best most straightforward description people will recognize which don't conflict badly with NPOV and normally a common name will be fine for that? Dmcq (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... I am not sure if I agree with that... I do see a distinction between names and descriptive phrases, but how the distinction impacts our titling is less clear. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq in the sense that, if the title is going to be challenged, we look to the sources that can provide the best form of external justification for that choice, whether it is acommon name or a descriptive title. We have to look at each case individually, but there must be some source of external validation we can agree on in order to reach the most neutral title, even if that is the least worst one. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that... as long as it is understood that the most neutral title may not always seem neutral (in that it may include non-neutral terms or names). Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Which takes precedence: Common name or Manual of Style?

Recently I proposed a move at Talk:Inland Empire–Orange County Line#Move to "Inland Empire-Orange County Line". The issue was whether the common name policy took precedence over the Manual of Style on dashes and hyphens. (I couldn't find a guideline on this, if there is one, I apologise.) Only one person commented, so I thought I would bring this to a larger audience to see what the consensus is. Thoughts? --TorriTorri 16:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict... the name without a hyphen (as per MOS) would still reflect the common name. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)