Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
United States abortion-rights movement received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
move 2011
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Pro-choice → Abortion-rights movement — Relisted. Ongoing discussion. --rgpk (comment) 15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC) or maybe just Abortion rights. Regardless of the ongoing debate at pro-life → anti-abortion (one article should not be held hostage to the bad name of another), the name "pro-choice" violates several naming conventions: (a) it is not a noun, (b) in is not international in scope (it is only COMMONNAME for the U.S.), (c) it is ambiguous (there are movements for choice in many other areas), (d) it is not NPOV: 'abortion rights' cuts to the quick as to what it's about. (However, the phrase abortion rights alone would cover only the legal status of abortion, not the movement to support the right to abortion.)
Other titles, such as support for legalized abortion, etc., are also worth considering. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Support nominator made some excellent points, only those of us who are pro-choice call ourselves this, it should be renamed to take a more neutral and precise title. WM23:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Suggest closing without prejudice to the proposal or the editor who made the nomination. As both editors above know - both being involved in the matter - there is presently a contentious move request for Pro-life that is still open and attracting debate. There have been several alternate proposals advanced in that discussion that aren't getting any traction due to the size of the debate, and some of those move proposals would affect both that page and this one. I'd suggest waiting for the other move request to close (it won't close with any consensus to move at this point) and then opening a general request on the other proposals, not only on one of them. Having this move request open will only get in the way of a more general debate. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It may very well move with consensus. Consensus is not a vote, but considers the quality of the arguments and whether a move is supported by wiki policies in general. Also, one of the repeated arguments (though one that an admin would probably ignore as irrelevant) is that this article is not up for renaming. If that RfM closes w/o a move, we might want to close this early and open a joint request, preferably with a better proposal for 'pro-life'. However, even if it does succeed, we will probably want to reopen it as 'anti-abortion' is also an unencyclopedic title.
We could also close both prematurely and open a joint RfM in their place.
Yeah, I think a centralized discussion would be best. I think it's important to avoid bias, and to be consistent. It would not be neutral if we created a situation out of a popular vote where we don't allow one movement to use their own terms, but we permit another to. -Andrew c01:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
But RfMs are not popular votes. WP is not a democracy. If one article is at an encyclopedic title and the other is not, that would only put pressure on the nonconforming article. Regardless, one article at a bad name is better than two.
We could suggest at talk:pro-life that the RfMs be combined. But if the wording of the destinations is modified, it will be much more difficult to do them together. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
If you think there is a problem with both article titles, and especially if you think there is the same problem with both article titles, then they would almost certainly be best discussed together. This can't be done while the previous request at Talk:Pro-life is still open, nor can it be done if that separate request closes and another separate request is open and halfway through discussion here. It is really best to wait and discuss the whole issue as one piece. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we leave it open to see if there are any good suggestions for improvement; when the other RfM closes, if it is still not at an encyclopedic title, why don't we plan on closing this early in order to combine the two, using the best title proposed here as the basis. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Seems like a logical renaming of the article. I had suggested something similar(except "Pro-Abortion Rights') on the "Pro-life" talk page. This is a much better suggestion, and seems like more neutral wording. Dave Dial (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Skeptical — while this suggestion is definitely better thought-out, it would stir the pot even more with respect to the "pro-life" title; what I'd hate to see is to have this one at the accurate title and the other one left where it is. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az8655608:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
A move towards accuracy for one is a move towards accuracy for all, provided the other article doesn't get moved to "Super-Moral Awesome Squad". Whether or not the other is moved is not really germane to this discussion- if we can make this article more neutral, we should (and that goes for the other as well). The complaints from either side that the moves must BOTH happen, or NEITHER can, are very telling, and not at all representative of any reasonable interpretation of WP:NPOV. Oh, also, Total Support. --King Öomie15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Support in principle - I am not a fan of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life". However, I'm not sure about the suggested target: "Abortion-rights" could refer to the rights of the mother or the rights of the unborn child. Incidentally has anyone considered merging the two articles into one, given that they're basically two sides of the same coin? Forgive me if this is a ridiculous suggestion, I've not really followed the history of these articles in detail. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone actually use 'abortion rights' to refer to the fetus? (Fetuses don't have abortions.)
Oppose, the OP's 4 points all fail. Point a) if it isn't a noun, the solution is not to rename the whole thing, but perhaps go "pro-choice movement". b) there is no evidence presented outside of the sheer claim (which I guess we should believe without evidence) that the name is not international. www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org www.prochoicemajority.org.uk prochoicevic.com/ et. al. and if we are to go by interwiki links, it seems like some variation on Pro-choice is used in non-English languages. The point is, the term IS known internationally, and we'd need more specific evidence or statistical analysis to show that it is used less often. But I am not buying any claim that it is not international in scope based on NO evidence. c) name one other "pro-choice movement" and that alone is not reason enough to change. we have Catholic Church which is clearly ambiguous. It seems really dense to claim that someone would be confused and have no idea what the article title is referring to based on ambiguity of title. We have John Lennon and John Lennon (captain). We don't disambiguate the most common title. We don't even have a disambiguation hatnote in the article, so I am really clueless what articles the OP thinks someone might confuse this one with. finally d) this is not a valid reason to change an article name. Boston Massacre, Jack the Ripper, etc are given as examples of cases where we should go with the common name over neutrality. I think this is the case. It is offensive to think we need to change what organizations call themselves because it offends some users. That's like saying we can't call certain sects "Christian" because it offends our definition of Christianity. Or that the Palestine Liberation Organization should be renamed because we don't think they are fighting for real liberation. There are clearly cases where we allow self identity in light of some objections, and I think this is the case with pro-choice. But perhaps that is the most subjective aspect of the above. I would still like to see specific evidence of common name, disambigutation, and international worldview violations.-Andrew c16:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a proposal to change what organizations call themselves. If they use "Pro-Choice" in their name, so be it. But this article is about a movement which has many names, not a single organization. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Undecided. The proposal raises some interesting issues, however I share Andrew c's view that most of those issues are not typically important in deciding article names. The one issue that I think would sway my opinion one way or the other is whether or not "Pro-choice" is the most common term world-wide or only in the US/Europe. Is there any evidence that "Pro-choice" is not the most commonly used term in other parts of the world? Kaldari (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Readers don't Google the phrase 'abortion rights' because its meaning is self-explanatory, which is an additional reason to use it. I see no scholarly vs general public issue here. Kauffner (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
According to this graph "pro choice" and "abortion rights movement" are currently in equal use in published English. Strangely, if you limit it to American English, "abortion rights movement" is clearly dominate, which would seem to contradict the original argument that it is an Americanism (as does the Google trends graph). Kaldari (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There are no large scale abortion rights movements outside the US, naturally enough since abortion is legal in most Western countries. You don't have to campaign for what you already have. victor falk00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Plenty of western countries have contentious debate on abortion, such as Ireland and Poland. But we're not just Western WP either: we're supposed to have global coverage. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot Poland. Sorry for using "Western" when meaning to say "English-speaking countries". I blame the British. Remember Orléans. As to the (english-speaking) third world, as far as I know, there are no strong movements, whether for or against. For instance, in India abortion is encouraged by the government, and it doesn't seem to be a big issue (the fact that girls are aborted much more frequently however is). victor falk04:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Weak opposition - Because of other ongoing debate and not sure if there's some hidden agenda. On the other hand I think "abortion rights movement" terminology that's now the last sentence should be in lead right now. Nothing wrong with saying it's all about abortion and of course "pro-choice" will still link to this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose because the article name presupposes that abortion is a right. If you don't want to have the articles named "pro-choice movement" and "pro-life movement", which are overwhelmingly the more common names, then "support for legalized abortion" and "opposition to legalized abortion" make far more sense as neutral names. --B (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
As has been pointed out so precious many times during the other discussion, Misplaced Pages is not just about America. There are plenty of parts of the world where abortion is not considered a legal "right", nor does, according to Gallup, around half of our country think it should be a right. --B (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Roe v. Wade is not written in stone; in fact, it's hanging by a thread with a 5-4 pro-choice majority on the Supreme Court. Dred Scott anyone? That abortion is a right is very much in dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
B, it doesn't presuppose that at all: it's a movement for the right to an abortion. That is, support of legalized abortion. (And M, it could be called this with or without RvW.) That said, your suggested paraphrases are also good names. — kwami (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm ... that is not how I interpret the phrase. When you refer to "abortion rights", I don't think you're hoping it's a right - you're saying it is. --B (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't follow B's reasoning. I can see the name presupposing that abortion can be CONSIDERED a right (contemplatively), but who can argue that? "It's not possible for that to be a right under any circumstances"... no. It's not like a hypothetical "Theft Rights Movement" would mean that theft is presently a right. The movement WANTS it to be. --King Öomie03:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
arbitrary break
Oppose because the title presumes that abortion is a right. The U.S. Supreme Court may (currently) say so, but that doesn't mean that the world recognizes it as a right. Millions, perhaps billions, would beg to differ that it's a right. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the map in the article, the only countries where there is no right to abortion is Chile, Uruguay, Dominica, and Nicaragua. That to me is an overwhelming global consensus that there should be some rights, the question is just whether more or less. Anyway, as has been argued above, there would still be such a thing a movement for abortion rights even if no country granted them, just like there was a movement for human rights in the XVIIIth century. victor falk04:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per nom, and particularly reject any arugments on the lines that "the title presumes abortion is a right" - of course it doesn't, an "X rights movement" is clearly understandable as meaning a movement which believes that there should be (or are) X rights; it doesn't imply that the person using the phrase believes there are such rights, any more than someone using the phrase "pictures of unicorns" believes that there are unicorns. (Though that said, I'd be willing to consider alternative titles as long as they're equally clear.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Twenty years ago, I would have opposed, as "Choice" was understood (even among those who opposed the use of the term) to refer in the US exclusively to the issue of abortion. However, in American politics, while it is still not used nearly as much as the abortion-related meaning, the term school choice has gained sufficient currency to warrant a look at this issue. Those who argue that term "pro-choice" is illogical (since there are many choices we make besides whether or not to have abortions) are missing the point: Here on Misplaced Pages, what is important is usage. And I think "school choice" has gained enough usage that the abortion rights movement cannot lay sole claim to the use of "choice". HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment I don't understand the some of the argument and supports above. They argue that one line or reasoning is incorrect, that the name "abortion rights" doesn't necessarily presuppose that abortion in fact IS a right. But just because one argument that some fellow Wikipedian's bring up is weak, does not mean that negating it is a good enough reason to move the article. It doesn't mean the proposed title is the BEST title, nor does it mean the proposed title is MOST in line with Misplaced Pages naming conventions. I think the discussion has gotten a bit off topic, and would suggest that even if B and NYyankees51's arguments fail or are weak, does not mean that by itself is a good enough reason to support the name change. I'd defer to my counterarguments above (attempting to) refute the 4 points raised in the original proposal. Also, HuskyHuskie, do you feel that this article needs a hatnote that says something like "pro-choice may also refer to school choice" for disambiguation purposes? I'm not convinced the school choice movement has adopted the "pro-choice" language, and would argue that "pro-choice" is NOT vague and there is simply no need for disambiguation or alternative names. -Andrew c19:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There are many wordings that would be accurate; however, "abortion rights" is the one I hear most frequently. If you can demonstrate that another wording is more common, fine, but you haven't done that. Also, besides "pro-choice" being ambiguous when taken out of context, it is regional. WP:WORLDVIEW. — kwami (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Not to use the word "abortion" in the article title is euphemistic. Someone who uses the word "pro-choice" is self-identifying as a supporter of this movement. As several editors have already noted, the suggested title means only that abortion is, or should be, a right from the POV of people involved in this movement, not that Wiki is taking a stand on the issue one way or the other. Kauffner (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I disagree with the nominator's comment about not holding one article hostage to another. I think naming one article according to the inaccurate propaganda term it has chosen to describe itself and the other article with neutral language is an extremely poor choice. The discussion should be closed and the two articles nominated together. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for symmetry with Pro-life; although I think both should have "movement" appended to their titles. Pro-choice is an adjective as far as I know, and thus is not a suitable article title. –CWenger (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Support . "Pro choice" is just a euphemism that avoids mentioning what the "choice" in question is. ("Pro-life" is equally silly.) Barsoomian (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
comment the arguments that make use of the policy Misplaced Pages:Article titles should be used. There seems to be no subsidiary guidelines that apply. Therefore arguments about euphemism, whether or not something is a right, or "I like it" will be of lesser importance. Commonality overrides neutrality. A relevant part is the use of a descriptive phrase. The proposed title is more neutral than the existing one. By common name, we have books using proposed title more, but newspapers and general web hits greatly prefer pro-choice, and as a search term slightly prefer pro-choice. Pro-life remained unchanged, but no consensus to combine the discussion of the moves ensued. A hat note can accommodate school choice, as pro-choice would remain as redirect or article title. Misplaced Pages requests for pro-choice exceed the alternative by about 500 to 1. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
"Pro-choice" is an actual article whereas "abortion rights" is just a redirect. So of course "pro-choice" currently gets more traffic. Web hits mean nothing when the numbers are very high like this. Google doesn't actually count millions of pages before it posts results. Besides, partisans are the ones motivated to put up Web sites. The term "abortion rights" is self-explanatory, so there is less need to look it up. I think the ngram is pretty convincing, so I will give it again here. Kauffner (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to "Comment": I and others said "euphemisms" were undesirable--if you want a hook in WP:Article titles, these go against "precision" and being "unambiguous" in the first section of that policy. "Pro-choice" is imprecise and ambiguous. Barsoomian (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comments
Would the closing admin please explain a bit more the decision? It is helpful to understand the reasoning behind controversial moves where there isn't a clear consensus. What arguments were most persuasive, how did you weigh comments, how did you arrive at a clear consensus vs. no consensus? Having been open 40 days is not a good enough reason to take a side on the matter. And the closing admin appears to have also participated in the debate and taken a position, so there are questions of an impartial judge (or lack there of). But of course, I 'voted' as well, so I'm not speaking in my capacity as an admin.-Andrew c23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The close was 12 days after the last vote.
Much of the opposition was based on wanting to move pro-life as well. Maybe he didn't buy that as a valid objection for not doing anything here? In any case, the fact that this has been moved means that it's name is no longer a possible objection at that article (in case it was ever given any credence there). — kwami (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It was. I've reviewed the article and talk-page history back to 2004, and "Anthony Appleyard" had never edited either. Unless you suspect sockpuppetry? The only other thing was a comment on the discussion before closing it, well after the debate had ceased.
Looking through the discussion, there are only three reasons for opposition: the first, where Andrew c said that my arguments were not adequate to justify the move, but which no other opposer supported; the objection that the title presupposes that abortion is a right, which is demonstrably false; and the argument that the two articles should be considered together, which is a bureaucratic point and not a vote against the name itself. So there was only one 'oppose' argument of any substance, that of Andrew. Not hard to see why Anthony would conclude there was consensus. — kwami (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this move should probably be reviewed. Maybe re-open the discussion and request comment from more users? - Haymaker (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI this uninvolved editor is the same editor who has re-opened the discussion to move Pro-life to Anti-abortion movement. Seems involved to me. Lionel (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hardly. A lot of people have said they should be moved or discussed together. "Involvement" does not come after the fact, but before. That was the logical next step, since the name here was used as an argument there. Acting on the logical consequence of a move does not make the admin "involved", though of course he cannot close the second RfM, because in that case he is involved. — kwami (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Requested move, again
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Abortion-rights movement → Pro-choice – As I've been saying I would, here is a nomination of both of these pages together. Hopefully it will avoid the problems with previous nominations, which is that not everyone involved was aware there were two page moves to vote on and that, since the outcomes were independent, people felt free to vote "NPOV title" for one and "Common usage" for the other as suited their biases. Note that the move proposal is to have the titles be parallel, whichever they ultimately are; there are arguments for either, but having one page be a neutral name while the other is a propagandic name is a POV nightmare. (The current format of the proposal, which appears to be suggesting a move for both pages, is only intended to centralize discussion.) Please format comments to indicate the titles you prefer, rather than "support" or "oppose" which is unclear. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Propose Abortion-rights movement → Pro-choice movement and Pro-life → Pro-life movementor Right-to-life movement. Abortion-rights and anti-abortion would be more straightforward but even more biased than the current situation by having one side called the "rights" movement and the other called the "anti" movement. Pro-choice and pro-life/right-to-life are widely used and though they may be biased as they were invented by the respective movements, I think it is the fairest option. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Support CWenger I Agree with CWenger's assesment for the reasons presented and that both groups have self-identified with Pro-choice and Pro-life. PeRshGo (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't follow this, we need to have a centralized discussion place. For my part, I would like to move "Pro-life" to "Anti-abortion movement". I'm a "pro-lifer", and I don't consider "anti-abortion" to be a biased or prejudicial term at all, nor do any of the pro-lifers I know consider it so. Sure, the movement leaders chose the term "pro-life" many years ago, but when you listen to the speeches of pro-lifers, you'll see that the arguements on our side are not couched in euphemisms--we're opposed to abortion and we say so. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NOTAGAIN, I mean seriously this has already been discussed twice in the last month or so, its not that big a deal. Bring it up in 6 months. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you even read the argument? I don't care what they are called; this is intended to resolve problems with previous nominations (at which I consistently expressed a desire for the articles to be nominated together). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
No possible argument can persuade me at this time. That Pro Life might be in the "wrong place" isn't that big a deal. It has been nominated for being moved twice in 3 months with extensive discussion already and closing both times as no consensus. Discussing it again - especially only a couple of days after the previous request was closed - isn't appropriate. Drop the stick and move on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Two points, I don't see how the past discussion here could be closed as "move" yet the one at pro-life closed as "no consensus". This is a serious issue, as it concerns an involved admin doing the closing of both. While perhaps we don't need to revisit the whole move discussion over, we should consider whether the past closures were appropriate on two levels (concerning the admin involvement, and concerning whether the outcome was proper). My second point of concern is now we have a situation where we have two articles covering opposing sides in a political/social debate, whose naming conventions lack parity in multiple ways: Pro-Life and Abortion-rights movement. One is an adjective, one is a noun phrase. One is a term of self identity, one is a media applied 'pseudo-neutral' term. Why do allow the pro-lifers to be called what they want to be called, but the pro-choicers don't get the same advantage. Or alternatively, why do we have more neutral title for abortion-rights people, but a POV title for the anti-abortion people? This lack of parity which has been the de facto situation for month is quite unacceptable, and I think waiting another 6 months is outright ludicrous. I don't support the admin's closure as move here. I think there was no consensus, and would urge moving back to the original titles ASAP. From where we go from there, I don't care too much, as long as both articles are discussed together, and the end result has more parity than what we have now. -Andrew c00:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That's life I guess, and the other move discussion has been reopened. At least one of the articles is now at a neutral name, there's no need to worry about it too much. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's an idea. Both Pro-Life and Abortion-rights movement actually cover quite a lot of the same ground and both are pretty poor articles (c-class). The Abortion debate article is better than both of them (but still only B-class). Why not have it as the sole article with re-directs from all the various terms. Use anything usable from the two defunct articles to beef up that article (plus all the energy that's gone into this pointless naming debate) and who knows it could be a Featured Article. I know, I know...it's ridiculous. Why should we be focusing on creating an excellent encyclopedia article when we could be spending weeks venting our POVs? DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
One !vote for explicitness. I see no virtue in the implication that only one kind of choice matters. —Tamfang (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose "Pro-choice" This is a usage of partisans. It is an adjective and thus not appropriate as the article title. It is also a WP:Euphemism. "Abortion rights" is far more common in serious writing, according to this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The admin who closed the last discussion here participated in it. Then, that admin opened a new discussion at pro-life, and participated in that, and decided to also closed that one. Thus leaving us with a situation with clear disparity in titles. Pro-life vs. abortion-rights movement. I don't feel that admins actions in either case were appropriate. And having two articles for months on end with such disparity in troublesome. I have been bold, and restored the situation we had for many years, where we allow both movement's term of choice to be in the title. The long standing article names "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not appropriate because Misplaced Pages's naming conventions say we must use a noun as the title. Thus, the addition of "movement" to both those terms. I do have a stake in both these articles, and I did in essence wheel war, and ignore consensus (except I'd argue that there was never consensus to move this article in the first place, especially given the pro-life discussion was closed as "no consensus"). It was a bold move. I'd gladly undo it (or otherwise promise to not fight any further over it). Everyone is welcome to discuss title changes, but it seems the previous processes have failed to produce parity of any sort. Please consider discussing name changes in a central location where both articles can be discussed in conjunction. -Andrew c21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you specify what you're opposing? I tried so hard in the move rationale to explain that "support" or "oppose" were not useful votes because it would not be clear what was being supported and what opposed - what titles do you prefer? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I oppose the move. What we have now is the closest thing there is to an NPOV title, and it's what responsible journalism uses. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
A move of "Pro-life" to "Anti-abortion movement" is also being proposed. This is why straight "support"/"oppose" votes are unclear! (Unless you support keeping both where they are? And if you do, could you explain why?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Only the first move was proposed at the top of this section, so that's what votes refer to. I support the 2nd move. I would also support a merger into Abortion debate, which was also proposed in the discussion. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Both are proposed at the top of this section; the coding formats it so that the second proposed move is after the move rationale, apparently, but both have been proposed from the beginning. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It's obviously not going to be the article title, given that it satisfies none of the criteria in WP:TITLE or that other users have brought up here (use in reliable sources, neutrality, accuracy, self-identification, etc.), so there's no apparent motive for suggesting it other than to jab at other users. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, especially considering they made it clear they were expressing a personal opinion and not necessarily advocating it. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll let kwami explain why zie used the word "troll" if zie chooses to do so. I'm just explaining why I don't think that comment was made in good faith. There's no reason to bring one's own personal politics into the discussion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
are you OK with the way things are, and why?
I don't want to get into a specific move request, or set up another vote, but instead get a feel on what everyone feels about both topics. Right now, we have one article at pro-life and another at abortion-rights movement. In my opinion, this situation lacks parity, but that is just my opinion, apparently. What do you think? If you think this situation is best explain why? If you disagree, briefly explain why, and suggest what 2 titles you think would work best. -Andrew c02:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
No, this is not acceptable. Go for neutrality, sure, go for common-name, sure, but don't use the neutral name for one and the propaganda name for the other. Hopefully the new move discussion will correct the problems that got us here? :/ Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I prefer neutrality and the elimination of euphemisms; as such, I would prefer seeing abortion rights movement and anti-abortion movement. This is the most professional, neutral, encyclopedic way to handle the matter. No kowtowing to propagandists, with parallel structure in both titles. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The only thing I might like better--because I think it would come closest to guaranteeing NPOV on this issue--would be DeCausa's suggestion that these be merged into one article, Abortion debate. I doubt it will ever happen, but logically, it makes sense. The current situation is akin to creating two articles, Pro-Atkins diet and Con-Atkins diet, instead of one article, Atkins diet, where both sides arguments are presented together. Really, DeCausa's suggestion would not only render this article naming issue moot, but would also get both sides editing furiously, forcing (a la Federalist No. 10) the compromise of neutrality. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That is a more practical solution for a smaller topic like the Adkins diet. But certainly the pro-choice and pro-life movements are discussed enough in reliable sources to be independent articles. Would you suggest only a foreign policy article instead of interventionism and isolationism? –CWenger (^ • @) 03:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if it stopped endless pointless debates whilst leaving two poor articles languishing because everyone is more interested in "winning the argument" for their Real World POV. DeCausa (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Better one article at a factual name and the other at a euphemism than both at a euphemism. Better still to move "pro-life" to a factual name as well. Or to merge the articles with Abortion debate. But for that to happen s.o. needs to propose the merger. — kwami (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, too. "Abortion debate" article should include a discussion of the use of "pro-x" vs "anti-y" language in the debate itself. BTW, the section "The debate" in the article "Pro-life movement" should not be brought forward unless it is considerably cleaned-up and made more neutral. Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlange (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't follow all the different debates on this topic, but put me down as a firm opponent of the propaganda terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in these two article titles, jointly and severally.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment As for "propaganda" terms, every movement tends to describe it in best possible light, and Misplaced Pages tends to favor the self-identified term over our personal opinions on the matter. For an example, see the Temperance movement.
I didn't write the above but that seems right. Pro-life and pro-choice, obviously with the descriptors "anti-abortion" which is clearly what they are and "abortion rights" which is not necessarily pro-abortion. One can be against abortion, while not wanting the state to interfere, preferring voluntary solutions to the problem. (Many libertarians take that position.) But calling one "abortion rights" and the other "pro-choice" clearly is biased; just as calling one "pro-choice" and the other "anti-abortion" clearly would be. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with your idea that the titles should have parallel structure, I couldn't disagree more with your argument about self-identification. First of all, the terms are Amerocentric, which is something we're supposed to be avoiding. But the fact that one can be in favor of abortion rights without being "pro-abortion" is a meaningless point. Suppose I believe that people should be able to walk around in public with their genitals completely uncovered, and start a movement to have such displays legalized. Some call my nascent movement the "public genital rights movement", but I say NO! I'm not saying that I'm pro-public displays of genitals-no, no no! I simply want the government to not interfere, and to allow people to make their own choice. I'm calling my movement the "Pro-choice" movement. The same could be done to support any number of causes, with proponents arguing that they do not favor a particular behaviour or policy, but merely support the right of others to choose it.
The "pro-life" tag is almost as deceptive. Millions of Americans favor limiting abortion rights and choose (!) to call themselves "pro-life" while at the same time calling for expansive use of the death penalty , a position which, at the very least, does not equate with the absolute preservation of life. Hell, a person could call themselves "pro-life" simply because they favor universal health care, and want to do everything to preserve life.
It is simply a fact that the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are not neutral ways to label these movements. And since non-Americans may not know these terms, and since pretty much everyone who knows what "abortion" is will realize what "anti-abortion movement" and "abortion rights movement" means, I believe that's what we should use. Self-identification can only go so far; an article detailing Kim Jong-il's office would not be titled Dear Leader, though we would allow such a thing to redirect us to the correct article. Pro-life should redirect to Anti-abortion movement and Pro-choice should redirect to Abortion-rights movement. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you are right. Misplaced Pages should not ignore what groups call themselves but when the identifier ALSO can be used to describe a number of other views, it does lose meaning. (Libertarians say they are pro-choice on everything after all.) Plus you get into confusing areas when a pro-life person vs. euthanasia for adults might support, for example, early term abortion. Encyclopedias should err for clarity. So shouldn't this discussion of changing title be at the Pro-life movement article? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You're probably right, but someone over there has a note saying to come over here. We should probably merge the two articles. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Note about Pro-Life Movement Also keep in mind that Anti-abortion Movement is not even entirely accurate because Pro-Life is also very commonly associated with opposition to euthanasia, and stem cell research. Neither of which fall under the heading of "abortion." PeRshGo (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
PeRshGo brings up an interesting point here; actually, two points. My take on the whole stem-cell issue is that is essentially one and the same as the anti-abortion take. The anti-abortion movement is opposed to the destruction of any zygotes/embryos/fetuses, all of which we see as innocent human beings. The stem-cell debate isn't over the actual conduct of stem-cell research, it's about the killing of unborn people to acquire said stem cells for use in such research. I know no one on our side who opposes stem-cell research that can be conducted without killing the unborn. But PeRshGo's euthanasia point is indeed, a bit of a quandary here. I can only speak for myself; I am a "pro-lifer" in the anti-abortion sense, but I favor allowing doctors to euthanize patients who ask for it, as well as capital punishment. I think I'm comfortable with, and believe that most people are comfortable with, associating the phrase "pro-life" only with the anti-abortion movement. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Add another voice for Strong Change and Weak "Anti-abortion/Pro-abortion rights". One of the first things I ever wrote on my User page was a rant about this very subject, so I'm glad to see it being discussed. First off the bat, there must be parallel treatment of the two camps. The current status quo is not acceptable, and, from what I'm seeing here, 100% of us, regardless of real-life POV, agree that it has to be changed. Huzzah for consensus! So the discussion really is a question of the self-identifying terms (pro-life, pro-choice) versus the (frankly) more accurate, precise terms (anti-abortion, pro-abortion rights). I think the euthanasia issue with the pro-life movement, which PeRshGo raised just above, is a good point, but is minor enough that we could reconcile it regardless of the naming scheme we ultimately pick.
I am very, very hesitant to use a titling structure that goes against WP:COMMONNAMES, and, in all honesty, pro-life and pro-choice are by far the most common names assigned to the two movements. They are strongly recognizable (arguably dominant) not only in America, as HuskyHuskie argued above, but in Canada, Ireland, Australia, and Great Britain, which would seem to cover the major constituents of the English Misplaced Pages. However, WP:COMMONNAMES is only one part of the Article Title policy, which mandates that the five main considerations be "recognizability", "naturalness", "precision", "conciseness", and "consistency." "Pro-life/pro-choice" certainly has recognizability and concision going for it, but at an enormous cost for precision and (as many an edit war has shown) consistency. I don't think that cost is worth it. As a self-identified pro-lifer and movement anti-abortionist, let's go with the neutral, precise terms. I think we have a majority for that already, but that's not quite a consensus. I'll try to stay tuned to catch the next official Move proposal and vote for it, but I've had a very hard time committing time to the project for the last few years. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - This whole discussion was brought in bad faith, about a month after consensus was reached not to move the "pro-life movement" article. The renaming of the "pro-choice" article seems to have been done partly in bad faith as many of the editors on that article said that it was their hope that that name change would force this one. We have conclusively proven that the term "pro-life" is used far, far more than "anti-abortion", and that the term is not merely an American term. Furthermore, it is my belief, one that is nearly impossible to argue against, that the term "anti-abortion rights" casts the movement in a negative light - by being an "anti" group and by opposing "rights". Sure, you can make up examples were it is good to be against thing, and where it is good to oppose rights, but generally, it is considered more attractive to be for something, not against something; and generally, it is seen as positive to defend rights, not to attack rights. So, because there is no parity in the terms, and because we have proven that the current term is both neutral and far more used, the title of the article should not be changed. For the record, I think that the "abortion rights" article should be moved back to "pro-choice" per WP naming conventions, but I do not think so a move is necessary for us to decide not to move the pro-life article.LedRush (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I urge anyone with an interest in the future of this article, as well as other abortion-related articles, to come read the (currently brief) discussion here. This new approach, which has been suggested by User:DeCausa, offers hope of settling these conflicts over the article names. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus for either option. I see a strong consensus that the article titles should be parallel, consistent with the earlier discussion, but unfortunately there is just no consensus whatsoever on the question which of those two sets is to be used. Nor is the argument for either side so extraordinarily strong or so extraordinarily weak as to justify finding a consensus with the editors basically equally divided between the two proffered options. The unfortunate fact is that we are locked into the status quo, which most agree to be undesirable, because there is simply no agreement on what action should be taken to end it. The alternative would be for the closing admin to basically choose one over the other by fiat (or perhaps by a coin flip), something I'm quite unwilling to do (not to mention that it is also beyond the closer's authority). In these circumstances, I suggest that the most practical approach would be to pursue a compromise solution that everyone can agree to. T. Canens (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
(Background: The last discussion closed with no consensus in favor of any title, but with a strong consensus in favor of parallel titles. Thus, please indicate under the appropriate heading which set of parallel titles you prefer. Discussion should take place under the discussion heading.)Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Abortion-rights movement and Anti-abortion movement
Support. While not perfect, of the parallel structure options, this offers the least loaded terms. "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" have the following problems: a) each of these names carries an implicit indictment of the other side, b) each of these names would be unintelligible to someone not versed in the abortion debate, and c) they are merely the propaganda tools of these interest groups; I'd rather Misplaced Pages not be harnessed for either side's purpose. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Support, clearly "choice" is ambiguous, also clearly, "pro-life" is wrong, since several "pro-lifers" support the death penalty, clearly not a pro-life stance. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. The name "Pro-life" does not of itself specify that the life mentioned is the life of a fetus; it could be taken to mean "against capital punishment" or about animals' lives, if the reader did not know before what organization "Pro-life" was for. The word "abortion" in these article' titles makes the meanings clear. The "rights" and "anti-" in the names reflect the POV of the movements described, not necessarily Misplaced Pages's POV. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll give you $100 if you can find someone who comes to the pro-life article looking for information on vegetarianism. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Support, clearest and least propagandist arrangement. I'd also support merging both articles into one (e.g. Abortion debate). Though I wouldn't object to separate articles (or a single combined one) specifically about the history and usage of the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" themselves. --Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. Clear and non-POV, moving away from perpetuating what is effectively a slur coined by the anti-abortion movement ("pro-life" implying that people who support abortion are "pro-death", which is clearly ludicrous). "Pro-life" may be common, but it is not NPOV and it is a term which is primarily used by its supporters, not its opponents (as is "pro-choice"). Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are highly ambiguous. The above is obviously the best choice to my mind. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Support Misplaced Pages should be encyclopedic concerning these articles. Like some media sources have recently decided, we should refer to each group as either "anti-abortion right supporters", or "abortion right supporters". That is the clear and concise choice to name the articles in a neutral manner. To have the articles named "pro-life" and "pro-choice", it implies the opposing views are "anti-choice" and/or "anti-life". (10:10, June 23, 2011)signed Dave Dial (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Support: Parallel names are preferable for obvious reasons. Abortion-rights movement and anti-abortion movement accomplishes this, but with one side being given a very positive name (the "rights" side) and the other negative (the "anti-" side). The other alternative is pro-choice movement and pro-life movement. Although these names are biased, being selected by the respective movements, they are widely used and I believe fall under WP:POVTITLE. I oppose moving Pro-life movement to anything else. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Support When is this going to stop? Parallel names are preferable, per CWegner, and WP:UCN is also preferable. This option satisfies both.Griswaldo (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Support per all of the above. It is clearly better, if possible, for political campaigns to be described for what they favour rather than what they oppose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Support While I don't personally particularly like these names, I still think WP:UCN is the most important principle to abide by when choosing article names. I would wish that the media and people in general would start using the less slogan-y names suggested above, but fact is that Pro-choice and Pro-life are clearly the most commonly used names by reliable sources. But whatever happens here, I would be strongly opposed to keeping the status quo. The main concern here must be to get back to parallel titles quickly.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Support Obviously pro-life is a common name used regularly by reliable sources and also groups use it to self-identify. Pro-life is fully within the policies WP:POVTITLE and WP:UCN. Similar with pro-choice. – Lionel20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep as is: Abortion-rights movement and Pro-life movement
Support I'd be inclined to say that we should keep these pages here - it still seems far too soon for any changes to be discussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
E-head, the issue that it may be too soon to discuss this is a legitimate point, but it's not the issue here. (Ask User:Roscelese why this is being done now, if you're curious.) Are you saying to keep it the way it is because you think it's too soon for a change, or is this your real preference? If so, why? HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Well isn't that the point? Come to a rational decision one way or the other (rather than stay with two unmatching titles) so we can stop continually debating it?--Kotniski (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The easy way to do that is to not debate it. How given the above discussion is an admin supposed to close it. Currently both sides look like "no consensus" with each other, so they'll have to vote count to pick which set of names to go for - more likely the close will be avoided for several weeks/months like last time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The previous two discussions clearly established that clear consensus to move cannot be attained. When clear consensus cannot be found,t he status quo must remain. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The consensus above looks to say that the two articles should have parallel titles. Given they currently don't have parallel titles that's a big sticking point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Support Way too soon to bring this up again. Pro-life move discussions have consistently closed No Consensus, and Abortion-rights was just closed Move a couple weeks ago! Lionel (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Which makes this seem like an ideal time to discuss it and finally sort it out one way or the other. "No consensus" is hardly a satisfactory or conclusive result, and it can hardly be satisfactory to retain two non-parallel titles as we have now. If you support retaining the status quo, please say why you think one article title should have the "pro-X" form and the other the descriptive form. If there's no rational justification for such inconsistency, we need to resolve it one way or the other.--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Swap around: Pro-choice movement and Anti-abortion movement
"Pro-life" is not a position taken to be vegans, so I don't see how "pro" life this is, since most keep eating animals. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I could not disagree more with CWenger's stance (not unique to him, I realize) that it is "negative" to label the pro-life side as "anti-". As someone who believes that abortion is murder, I'm quite proud to be "anti-"abortion. I was also a fervent "anti-communist" when I was younger, and I'd like to think that 200 years ago I would have been anti-slavery. This notion that "anti-" is negative is a crock of dogs**t; there's nothing better than to be "anti" something evil. I don't personally know one pro-lifer who feels slighted by being called "anti-abortion". HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I hasten to add that I do not consider "pro-choicers" to be evil. Most of my close friends disagree with me on this topic, but they do so civilly, simply because they proceed from a different set of assumptions than I have. They honestly don't see an embryo as a person, so logically, from their perspective, its indefensible to tell a woman she can't have an abortion. I respect that thinking, and I love these people, whom I simply believe to be misguided into supporting a practice that I regard as evil. But please don't say I'm attacking the pro-abortion rights crowd or any individuals, because I'm not. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
CWenger, your point about the abolitionists is a good one. I actually about it even before I made the post (though I had not considered the temperance movement), but felt that it didn't affect the point I was making. I really wonder if someone with expert historical knowledge could weigh in. What, for example, were the anti-abolitionists called, or the anti-temperance movement? Did they also have two "pro" sides? (I can see the anti-abolitionists and anti-temperance movements both describing themselves as "pro-choice" --Don't call me 'pro-slavery', I'm not "pro"-slavery, I just think that everyone should get to choose for themselves whether or not to own a slave.) But seriously, your historical point may be the strongest argument I've seen for keeping "prolife" and "prochoice". It might be easier for me to stomach if both articles included in their first two sentences some acknowledgement of the propagandic nature of their chosen names. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I take no stand on which set of titles to use. However, I'd like to forestall arguments that argue against "anti-abortion movement" because the "pro-life" label also encompasses, some say, opposition to stem cell research, IVF, to this, to that and the other. The article as it stands and as it stood does not cover these other debates; it is about the opposition to abortion. This is the common understanding of the term and the only position shared by all people calling themselves "pro-life." Let's not make decisions based on what title would be appropriate if a complete rewrite were to take place, since that rewrite is unlikely ever to happen. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment I am in complete shock that pro-life has been proposed for move again. And this proposal is one of the most manipulative tactics I've ever seen. Under the guise of "parallel" names and "no consensus last time" pro-life has been dragged into yet another move discussion. Pro-life has been the subject of move discussion for the entire year. When it wasn't being discussed it was being surreptitiously moved or merged. Instead of improving the encyclopedia, dozens of editors have been occupied arguing ad nauseum over pro-life for half a year! This is abusive, unproductive and outrageous. Editors are fatigued. I hold responsible one editor in particular for this travesty: Anthony Appleyard. This admin pushed through the renaming of pro-choice, and then attempted to push through the renaming of pro-life. When he failed in renaming pro-life he opened this discussion based on his close which renamed pro-choice, claiming the titles need to be "parallel." Any other editor would be at ANI for gaming the system. After 6 months of this, it's obvious the objective is to continuously discuss pro-life until the pro-abortion cadre achieves the result they want. If you are so concerned about "parallel" titles, Anthony, why not just move abortion rights back to pro-choice? If you recall you moved that article in spite of that discussion leaning no consensus and over objections to your close raised at the time. I bet one gently used sonogram machine that you find no objections and you will avoid wasting another month of our time. Be bold, Anthony, be bold. Lionel (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is the problem. Pro-choice was moved "successfully" with LESS "consensus" and support than there was for moving Pro-life (which another admin closed as "no consensus"). Apparently no one has noticed this or is as bothered at this than I am. No admin (well, besides me... which lead to my first ever block, though that is a different story) has the will to question or even go against Anthony, even though there have been tons of questionable admin actions on his part after he has become quite involved in these discussions (though we can give him credit for undoing some of them). I argue that there NEVER, EVER was clear consensus to move this article in the first place, and that the rogue admin actions should be reverted. However, his actions have now created a situation where the article names lack parity. So it gives the illusion that we allow one side to use their own term of self-identity, but we impose a more "neutral" term on the other side (and thus creating a sense or urgency to correct this wrong). And we are in this situation, not because of the will of the people, and because of consensus, but because an involved admin made a questionable closure and move, where there was less than 60% support, where on the other article, an uninvolved admin made a different closure as "no consensus" with over 70% support. The whole situation is a bit ridiculous now. If Anthony doesn't take Lionel's plea to be BOLD and self-revert, I think an uninvolved admin needs to step in, examine the original move, and objectively decide if my take on the situation is correct (and that the article should never have been moved in the first place). Step back to square one, so there isn't a sense of urgency of trying to get the article naming parity back. And then re-examine the situation if needed (and in a centralized discussion format, with proper announcements and notifications). -Andrew c20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Well put, Andrew. And I did notice the questionable close of pro-choice and registered my concerns. I noticed your reverting of abortion-rights and I applaud you for your courage. Notice that the third admin, Sarek, also has had some issues as of late. I was going to use the "R" word myself, but thought better of it. But you're dead on: these actions are best described as rogue. Btw, did I mention that that ultrasound prints color scans of your baby and plugs into USA and Euro outlets?Lionel (talk)
Alternatively pro-life should probably have been moved. I didn't complain about it at the time, because I thought a merge was by far the best option and that it wasn't therefore worth fighting for. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Point of process. This is a very peculiar move request, because it involves two articles with multiple naming options. My question is, if we get to a point where we have 12 people supporting #1, 8 people supporting #2, and 3 people supporting #3, what happens to the articles? If we close it as "no consensus" and don't change anything, then the option with the least supporters wins. No point getting into statistical analysis yet, because my numbers are hypothetical. But it could be like only 5% of voters get their way, because consensus doesn't equal majority rule (and the two decent options which restore parity split the vote). -Andrew c20:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I had wondered about that myself. To do this correctly we really need second and third options, where first option counts for 3 points, second option 2, third option 1. We don't want to turn this into too much of a simple vote-counting process but it might be appropriate here because both sides obviously have strong points (at least in my opinion). –CWenger (^ • @) 20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah this is the point I came here to make. The only real way to go is to vote count between the top two options (which look like the ones which are going to get the most votes/support) - are the "pro life/pro choice" guys happy for "abortion-rights/anti-abortion" to win (and vice versa) on that basis? If not then I think we need mediation to look at this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest people stop speculating about how the discussion will be closed, and concentrate on providing substantial arguments for their preferred options – maybe then something resembling consensus will be reached. Let's remember that there are other possibilities apart from simply renaming the existing articles or leaving them as they are - we could merge them, or maybe split out information relating specifically to those who use the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" (bear in mind that the abortion debate takes place all over the world, and those two terms are not used everywhere).--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Unless there is a large change in people's views just allowing this discussion to run its course isn't likely to be particularly productive. If an admin wasn't willing to move pro-life before they aren't going to solve this one in any reasonable way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
at 6-6 with 2 other opinions (keep as is), it should end as no consensus, and remain as is, if it were closed normally. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus for option 1, nor for option 2. And an admin would be cautious about closing this controversially. Remember the firestorm that erupted when Anthony Appleyard closed and moved pro-choice -> abortion-rights without consensus. There was also a controversial move of pro-life by, hmmm, what was his name, it's on the tip of my tongue, almost got it, oh yea: Anthony Appleyard. That move also created a firestorm of discontent throughout Misplaced Pages and ended up at ANI. In the end Anthony Appleyard had to undo the move. I think an admin would want to avoid the scrutiny, recrimination, accusations of bias, perceived loss of impartiality, that accompanied Anthony Appleyard's rash decisions. I would hope that the closing admin would learn from the mistakes made by Anthony Appleyard. – Lionel20:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Bulletpoints or paragraph?
I sorted the motivations for abortion into bulletpoints, but somebody reverted me . Do you prefer bulletpoints or a normal paragraph? Pass a Methodtalk11:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I know there was discussion at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-22/Abortion-rights movement, but at some point I couldn't keep reading everything, so if this was already addressed I apologize. Although I mostly support the new name, I have two issues. First, wouldn't it be more accurate to say "support/opposition for/to legal abortion"? Currently it isn't really accurate in most cases because it is already legal. Second, as per WP:COMMONALITY, shouldn't we avoid legalized/legalised/legalization/legalisation? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I share CWenger's concerns. In addition, "legalisation of abortion" sounds somewhat like "legalisation of marihuana", i.e. the legalisation of something that continues to be deemed socially unacceptable or as not conforming to established social norms. Cs32enTalk to me23:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, valid concerns. However, if memory serves, there were objections as well to CWenger's suggested title. I think just about every angle was covered, and this, of course, will make no one happy. But maybe (just maybe) we can move on now. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Certainly not everybody is going to agree on titles for contentious pages like these, and as I said I mostly support this solution. I am just requesting that my points be addressed briefly. I find it a little unusual as to how this matter was concluded. I don't understand why there was not a clear final proposal and then a discussion on that. Or perhaps even a normal move request with the rationale being a link to the mediation page. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the title should say "legal", not "legalisation", and argued as much in the mediation case. As Cs32en notes, this title implies that the natural state of affairs is for abortion to be illegal. It also frames the debate in terms which are intrinsically nonsensical in any jurisdiction where abortion has never been illegal. (And, come on, British spelling? You've got to be kidding me.) But, my fundamental position on the debate was all that was absolutely required was that the titles be parallel rather than one side being permitted its self-chosen propaganda name and the other being saddled with a neutral-shading-into-hostile description. This has perhaps been achieved (though the unfortunate implications of "legalisation" may subvert that beyond long-term tolerance). I support us all taking a break and giving matters some sober consideration before opening up the next can of worms. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I share the concerns over the implication in the title that abortion is or should be illegal, though my problem with it is less POV-related and more systemic-bias-related - most of our coverage of the movements for and against the right to abortion is coverage of localities where it is legal. We don't actually talk very much about localities where it is not. However, as I said many times during the discussion, I do not actually care that much what the titles are as long as they are parallel, so I'm fine with this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with CWenger. Pro-lifers oppose abortion regardless of legality, so the title isn't entirely accurate. I know the closing/moving admin was acting in good faith, but this does not resolve the dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I see the issue, but I think it's pretty minor. I'm not sure any title of reasonable length is going to be 100% accurate for these subjects (most pro-lifers support allowing abortion in some cases). I think you supported Pro-life movement / Pro-choice movement, as I did, but do you have recommendations to tweak the current title to resolve this? I could envision making it just Opposition to abortion, but some might see that as an unacceptable loss of the parallel naming structure. Pro-choicers would never support Support for abortion because they will say they don't support it, they just want it to be an option. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the general discontent with the new article titles, the pro-life article's title is very strange, fails to encompass the information provided and is should be changed back to pro-life or pro-life movement. The pro-choice article's name is also strange and, in American terms, certainly fails to adequately the pro-choice cause. I will leave it to persons with a better perspective on that side of the aisle to find the most fitting term. - Haymaker (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I see no "general discontent". Apart from you and NYYankees, there's some peripheral concerns. That's all. I think there's general content that this is over. (Silent majority!) DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I considered this to be a debate on whether the exact title should read "Support for legalized abortion", "Support for legal abortion", "Support for the legality of abortion", or a similar title, not whether to revive the debate between "Pro-choice"/"Pro-life" and other options. Cs32enTalk to me02:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... Am I at all open to revisiting the pro-life/pro-choice debate about the titles? Thinking... thinking... Hell Yea! Any discussion that was incompatible with Stephen's agenda was squelched.– Lionel03:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
What agenda do I have? The suggestions I made were as a neutral mediator who assessed the situation, and the discussion was closed by an uninvolved administrator, who is also an arbitrator (though not acting in that capacity at the time). If you're not happy with the outcome, take it to the Arbitration Committee. See what they say. Steven Zhang03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you've done a good job, Steven, but the moves are not going to cut it. And the idea that "pro-life" is ambiguous is a joke; go out into a city anywhere in the world and ask people what they think of when they hear "pro-life", 99.9999999% will say abortion. Of course "pro-choice" is ambiguous and I object to the term, but the case is the same for that. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Steven, I think "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion" is unwieldy. It's also, as has been mentioned over and over, inaccurate as the Pro-life movement opposes abortion whether it's legal or not. When readers type "prolife" in the search window, they are not looking for articles about animal shelters or turkeys. --Kenatipo17:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
How do you know? Have you got any evidence or is it just a hunch? What about the people in Singapore, Hong Kong, Delhi and Sydney and other cities around the world? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm being completely serious. There has been an enormous amount of asserting that things are true without evidence and without taking WP:NPOV into account. That's why Chase Me closed the mediation case the way he did, he made it clear why he closed the case that way in his rationale. How things work in your corner of the United States isn't necessarily how the rest of the world does things. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
If you are not going to engage in this conversation seriously (or without being condescending and presumptive), why even bother? Are you trolling?LedRush (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I had an interesting conversation with "Chase me, ladies" about his recent decision, on his talk page. (He said I was the only one that complained!) But he grew tired of it, so I copied it to the bottom of my own talk page (if you're interested). It may give insight as to how the deck is stacked, so to speak. --Kenatipo23:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm responding to Steven's main statement above, starting with the sentence, "There's a lot of discussion here that the new title doesn't accurately describe the article." Steven's whole point, if I'm not misunderstanding, is that the term "pro-life" should not be used, or cannot be used, simply because it has uses other than meaning opposition to abortion. So what? Countless names used as titles in WP have uses other than the topic of that article. That because in deciding titles in Misplaced Pages, we often consider a concept we refer to as primary topic:
Process of resolving ambiguous article titles
"WP:DAB" redirects here. For the Manual of Style guideline, see MOS:DAB. For the WikiProject, see WP:WPDAB.
"WP:D" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:D (disambiguation).
This page in a nutshell: Disambiguation helps readers quickly find a desired article in cases when a term could reasonably apply to more than one article.
Disambiguation in Misplaced Pages is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Misplaced Pages, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic. For example, Mercury can refer to a planet, a chemical element, a Roman god, and many other things.
There are three important aspects to disambiguation:
Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title. For example, three of the articles dealing with topics ordinarily called "Mercury" are titled Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), and Mercury (mythology).
Making the links for ambiguous terms point to the correct article title. For example, an editor of an astronomy article may have created a link to Mercury, and this should be corrected to point to Mercury (planet).
Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. For example, the page Mercury is a disambiguation page—a non-article page which lists various meanings of "Mercury" and which links to the articles that cover them. (As discussed below, however, ambiguous terms do not always require a disambiguation page.)
This page discusses the standard ways of handling the above issues. For detailed advice about the format of disambiguation pages, see the style manual.
Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing English Misplaced Pages article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles.
There are three principal disambiguation scenarios, of which the following are examples:
The page at Joker is a disambiguation page, leading to all the alternative uses of Joker.
The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses.
The page at Michael Dobbs is about the primary topic, and there is only one other use. The other use is linked directly using a hatnote; no disambiguation page is needed.
For how to decide which of these scenarios is appropriate in a given case, consider the following sections.
If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it and not a disambiguation page. Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically (e.g., History of France) or geographically (e.g., Rugby union in the British Isles), the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual. Where there are additional meanings that are not instances or examples of a Foo primary concept or type, those should be included on a Foo (disambiguation) page.
For example:
Particle (previously a disambiguation page) is a broad and abstract concept used to address many different ideas in physics, generally relating to small units from which larger things are composed. Although there are many different kinds of particles at levels ranging from the subatomic to the macroscopic, the broad concept is properly susceptible to explanation in an article. Truly unrelated meanings, such as Particle (band), are presented only at Particle (disambiguation).
A Supreme court, National trust, or Finance minister (or Ministry of Finance) is each a kind of entity occurring in multiple countries and possibly in other political entities and serving the same purpose in each. Rather than having disambiguation pages at these titles linking to existing articles on these entities by nation, each should contain an article describing in general terms what the concept is and how the different examples of this concept relate to each other.
The Microsoft Lumia is a cell phone with many different design models. The fact that different models in the same series of product by the same manufacturer may have the same name, or the same combination of name and number, does not make them ambiguous. The relationship between these design models can and should be discussed on a page describing products created by or licensed by the same manufacturer.
Central Asia, Northern Europe, and Southern United States are geographic designations that have been used with respect to different specific boundaries over time. Varying uses for broad geographic terms can be discussed in the context of an article describing the overall agreement of which areas definitely fall within that designation and which areas are only occasionally described as falling within that designation, for certain purposes.
Football may refer to one of a number of team sports which all involve, to varying degrees, kicking a ball with the foot. Although the word "football" can apply to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears, all of these variations share some common elements and can be traced to a common origin. Thus, the history and development of the general concept of football can be explained in its own article. Football (disambiguation) describes the various literal uses of the word including the actual balls.
Many definitions of triangle center are used in Euclidean geometry, which coincide only in the special case of equilateral triangles. The article lists a dozen of these and also gives a validity criterion applicable to various definitions of center.
In writing articles on these subjects, it is useful to directly address the scope of the term and the history of how the concept has developed. Each of the examples of the concept or type of thing should be included at some point in the article, possibly in a list, so that no information is lost from what would have been presented in the disambiguation page format. Consider using summary style to incorporate information about the subtopics into the main article.
Pages needing to be expanded to describe the concept may be tagged with {{Broad-concept article}}.
Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If no primary topic exists, then the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.
While Misplaced Pages has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these:
A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
In most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance; in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant.
In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic.
There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons) include:
WikiNav, which shows a graph of incoming and outgoing traffic from a given page, as well as other graphs. It can be used to compare incoming and outgoing traffic patterns, but doesn't show the long tail of traffic well because it anonymizes data that is more scarce. The top graph shows only a single month of historical traffic, so it's fair to consider it over a longer period of time before suggesting changes.
A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as the name of a local place, or software), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience. An attorney may read the word hearing and immediately think of a courtroom, but the auditory sense is still the primary topic.
A rule of thumb is that it's unlikely that there is a primary topic by usage if the top WikiNav graph shows a spread of multiple significant usages, or if there is so little traffic that few or no graphs are shown. Conversely, a rule of thumb is that it's likely there is a primary topic by usage if the top graph shows a single significant usage that maps to almost all of the incoming traffic and overwhelms all other usages.
Initialisms and acronyms are often so ambiguous that it's less likely a primary topic can be determined in those cases.
Non-encyclopedic uses of a term are irrelevant for primary topic purposes; for instance, Twice is about a Korean pop band, despite the existence of the common English word "twice", as the latter is not a topic suitable for an encyclopedic article.
Perhaps the most commonly rejected criterion is that the primary topic should only belong to what "first comes to mind". This argument is inevitably tainted by factors such as one's location, ideology, ethnicity, and other personal biases, but we are trying to build an encyclopedia that is untainted by systemic bias. Therefore, the primary topic is determined without regard to certain attributes, such as national origin, of the articles in question.
Because many topics on Misplaced Pages are more interesting or pertinent to particular groups, one potential criterion to commonly avoid is what "first comes to mind". An American might first think of the city in Alabama when Birmingham is mentioned, but primary topic belongs to the city in England, which is far more notable and whose article is read much more often. Raleigh takes you directly to the American city, even though a British reader may not even know of the city and only think of the explorer or bicycle manufacturer when Raleigh is mentioned. What first comes to your mind when you hear the word Java? It may be coffee or a programming language, but the primary topic belongs to the island with over 150 million people living on it.
Partial title matches should also be considered. Consider what users searching with the term in question are most likely to be seeking. For instance, New York City is a partial title match for "York" and is far more notable and likely to be sought (more page views) than is the British city from which it got its name, and the vast majority of the time that "York" is used in books, it is used as part of the phrase "New York". However, since users are unlikely to search for New York with the search term "York", which is supported by the rare use of unqualified "York" to refer to "New York" in reliable sources, York still hosts an article on the British city, and no suggestion to change that would be seriously entertained. Likewise, "Sofia" has been the first name of countless girls and women throughout history; however, as a single term it most commonly refers to the Bulgarian capital, and anyone searching with plain "Sofia" is most likely looking for that city.
To be clear, it is not our goal to astonish our readers, and the topic that comes first to mind indeed often is suitable as the primary topic. Anne Hathaway, as one of countless examples, takes the reader to the modern-day American movie star's page, not to the article on the wife of William Shakespeare. But in no case do "what comes first to mind" or "what is astonishing" have much bearing, either positive or negative, on which topic, if any, actually is the primary topic.
The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term should redirect to the article (or a section of it). The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary. For example:
The city which is the subject of the article on Gdańsk used to be called Danzig in English, but is now usually referred to as Gdańsk. Thus the primary topic for "Danzig" is this city; Danzig redirects to Gdańsk, and the latter page contains a {{redirect}} hatnote linking to Danzig (disambiguation).
When a disambiguation page lists only one existing article by that name (all other suggested articles are red-linked), the normal rules for primary topic still apply. The existing article is not automatically the primary topic nor is there automatically no primary topic. So:
If the article with the blue link is the primary topic, it should be the primary landing page (possibly via a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT). The disambiguation page should be at a page with the (disambiguation) qualifier.
If there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should be the primary landing page.
On the rare occasions that a red-linked article would be the primary topic, the situation is treated as if there is no primary topic until the red-linked article is written.
Please note, MOS:DABMENTION still applies: any red-linked entry should still have a blue link to an article that covers the redlinked topic.
As discussed above, if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name.
If a disambiguation page is needed, but one of the other topics is of particular interest, then it may be appropriate to link to it explicitly as well as linking to the disambiguation page. For example, Inflation is about the primary topic—a rise in prices—and a hatnote links to both Inflation (cosmology) and Inflation (disambiguation).
If there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer, but there is no primary topic (per the criteria at § Is there a primary topic?), then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term. For example, John Quested is a disambiguation page for the two people by that name who can be found in the encyclopedia:
If there is a primary topic located at the base name, then the question arises whether to create a disambiguation page, or merely to link to all the other meanings from a hatnote on the primary topic article.
If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.)
If an existing disambiguation page does not appear to be needed because there are only two topics for the ambiguous title and one of them is the primary topic, but there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Misplaced Pages now or in the future, an {{about}} hatnote can be used to link to a disambiguation page (either in addition to or instead of a link directly to the other article). At the same time, the {{One other topic}} template should be added to the top of the disambiguation page, which will inform users that the page has only two ambiguous terms, one of them primary; thus it may be deleted if, after a period of time no additional ambiguous topics are found to expand the disambiguation page. The {{One other topic}} template will also list the article in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic, allowing other editors to locate these pages and help in expanding them. If the two-dab page has been expanded to include additional ambiguous topics, {{One other topic}} template should be removed and a direct link in the primary article to the other article may not be needed anymore as a link to the disambiguation page alone may be sufficient.
If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that.
Different spelling variants
If the titles of two articles differ only in capitalization, pluralization, spacing, or punctuation (as per WP:DIFFCAPS or WP:PLURALPT), the articles each should contain a hatnote to link to each other: for example, Ice cube and Ice Cube.
For disambiguating specific topic pages by using an unambiguous article title, several options are available:
Natural disambiguation. When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use.
Comma-separated disambiguation. Ambiguous geographic names are often disambiguated by adding the name of a higher-level administrative division, separated by a comma, as in Windsor, Berkshire. See Naming conventions (geographic names).
Parenthetical disambiguation. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, as in Vector (spatial), but it is usually better to rephrase such a title to avoid parentheses (for instance, Vector (spatial) was renamed to Euclidean vector).
Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation; for instance, Fan district and hand fan are used instead of Fan (district) and fan (implement). If no unambiguous, commonly used, and clear natural disambiguation is available, another type of disambiguation is used. If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)".
Naming conventions applicable to certain subject areas are listed in the box to the right; these often contain detailed guidance about how to disambiguate. In particular, for articles about people, see the Disambiguating section in the people naming convention.
Format
To conform to the naming conventions, the phrase in parentheses should be treated just as any other word in a title: normally lowercase, unless it is a proper noun (like a book title) that would appear capitalized even in running text.
Users searching for what turns out to be an ambiguous term may not reach the article they expected. Therefore, any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Misplaced Pages articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article using one or more of the templates shown below.
Disambiguation hatnotes are not article content; they are associated with the title, rather than any article topic content.
In some cases there are multiple templates available, one including and another omitting information about the topic of the article. The shorter hatnote may be chosen if omitting the information is not likely to confuse the reader.
On a primary topic page for a term that has one secondary topic only (no disambiguation page):
Type {{about|TOPIC|TOPIC 2|ARTICLE (2)}} to produce:This article is about TOPIC. For TOPIC 2, see ARTICLE (2).
Type {{for|TOPIC 2|ARTICLE (2)}} to produce:For TOPIC 2, see ARTICLE (2).
On a secondary topic page for a term that has one other topic only (no disambiguation page):
As above, but consider whether the hatnote is really necessary (see the first of the usage guidelines below).
On a primary topic page that has an associated disambiguation page:
or, if the disambiguation page is not in the default location, type {{other uses|NAME}} to produce:For other uses, see NAME.
When the primary topic redirects to another page:
If there is only one secondary topic, type {{redirect|REDIRECT|TOPIC 2|ARTICLE (2)}} on the target page to produce:"REDIRECT" redirects here. For TOPIC 2, see ARTICLE (2).
If there is a disambiguation page, type {{redirect|REDIRECT}} to produce:"REDIRECT" redirects here. For other uses, see REDIRECT (disambiguation).
Other variations on these templates are available, including templates for specific subjects such as places, numbers, etc. Templates are listed and illustrated at Misplaced Pages:Hatnotes#Templates.
It is usually preferable not to add disambiguation hatnotes to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. However, for some topics this is a good idea. For example, Treaty of Paris (1796) should include a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Paris (disambiguation), since many users might not know that there is more than one treaty with this name, and we cannot predict what external search engines will link to. In other cases, such a hatnote is not necessary. For example, Mirror (1975 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Mirror", and most users will know to type Mirror in the search box to find other topics.
As noted above, disambiguation hatnotes should be placed at the top of an article, where they are most visible. For alternatives that are related to the article but are not a source of ambiguity, the "See also" section at the end of the article is more appropriate.
Do not use piping to change the title of disambiguation entry links. Showing the actual linked entry title avoids confusion. (Piping may be used for formatting or technical reasons; see the Manual of Style exceptions.)
Consolidate multiple disambiguation links into as few disambiguation hatnotes as possible.
See Misplaced Pages:Hatnote for other guidelines on the proper use of disambiguation hatnotes.
Disambiguation pages
About 5% of Misplaced Pages's 6,929,979 pages are disambiguation pages.
A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms. Sets of terms which are commonly so combined include:
Terms that differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks. These should almost always share a disambiguation page. For example, the terms Oe, Ōe, OE and O.E. are disambiguated on a single page (Oe).
Corresponding singular, plural and possessive forms, or compound words. For example, the terms Eaglenest, Eagle Nest, Eagle's Nest and Eagle Nests all appear at Eagle's Nest, and Flowers (disambiguation) redirects to Flower (disambiguation).
Variant forms of names. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith.
Terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article (e.g. "a", "an", or "the" in English). For example, Cure (disambiguation) also contains instances of The Cure.
Editorial judgement should be used in deciding whether to combine terms in the ways described above. If a combined disambiguation page would be inconveniently long, it may be better to split the disambiguation page into separate pages.
When a combined disambiguation page is used, redirects to it (or hatnotes, as appropriate) should be set up from all the terms involved.
The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Jupiter (disambiguation).
When a disambiguation page combines several similar terms, one of them must be selected as the title for the page (with the "(disambiguation)" tag added if a primary topic exists for that term); the choice should be made in line with the following principles:
The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives.
In addition, when a disambiguation page exists at the ambiguous term, there should also be a redirect to it from the "(disambiguation)" title; in other words, if "Term ABC" is a disambiguation page, a redirect from "Term ABC (disambiguation)" should be created if it does not already exist. This type of redirect is used to indicate any intentional links to the disambiguation page, to distinguish them from accidental or erroneous incoming links that should be disambiguated to the appropriate article.
Start each list with a short introductory sentence fragment with the title in bold, and ending with a colon. For example:
Blockbuster may refer to:
Try to start each entry in the list with a link to the target page, unless the link provided gives context rather than a synonymous meaning.
Each bulleted entry should have a navigable (blue) link, normally as the entry itself (see the previous bullet), or in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked.
Rarely should a bulleted entry have more than one navigable link; including more than one link can confuse the reader.
Do not pipe the names of the links to the articles being listed. (See exceptions.)
Entries are sentence fragments; do not end them with periods or other punctuation.
The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct a reader seeking information on a topic to the right page. It is common to add a little additional information (which may make reference to the full article unnecessary). For example, the disambiguation page for Roosevelt contains the entry "Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), 32nd U.S. president". On the other hand, "Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), US president 1933–1945, Democratic Party, a central figure in world events, creator of the New Deal, in a wheelchair from polio since 1921, died in office" would be inappropriate; it summarises the article rather than merely disambiguating.
Images are discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question. See: MOS:DABIMG.
A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. Otherwise, there are templates for linking the reader to Wiktionary, the wiki dictionary; see Template:Wiktionary. It is also not an interlanguage dictionary.
"WP:PARTIAL" redirects here. For information about Misplaced Pages's policy on partial blocks, see Misplaced Pages:Partial blocks. For information on partially disambiguated article titles, see WP:PARTIALDAB.
"WP:PTM" redirects here. For the article title guideline on primary topics, see WP:TITLEPTM.
A disambiguation page is not a search index. A link to an article title that merely contains part of the disambiguation page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion between them, is considered a partial title match, and should not be included. For example, Louisville Zoo is not included at Zoo (disambiguation) because people outside Louisville would not readily identify it as the "Zoo", and including all zoos in the world in the disambiguation page is impractical (though List of zoosis listed in the "See also" section). Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi, since that name is used by the US state article, but it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi".
Placenames are often divided between a specific and generic part, for example North Carolina (where "Carolina" is the specific, and "North" the generic part). Common generics are compass points, upper/lower, old/new, big/small, etc. It is entirely proper to include such placenames in disambiguation pages with the specific title (North Carolina is properly listed at Carolina (disambiguation)); but only exceptionally under the generic title: Kingston upon Hull is properly listed at Hull (disambiguation) but we do not expect to see North Carolina in North (disambiguation), just as we do not expect to see Mississippi River in River (disambiguation)).
Instead of listing partial title matches, consider adding the self-reference tool templates {{srt}}, {{look from}} or {{intitle}} in the "See also" section, which link to all articles starting with or containing a particular term, respectively.
To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it. We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is listed only at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article. This is even more widespread for first names—many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. Herb (disambiguation) does not even list any people named "Herb", but instead links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed. Consensus among editors determines if an article should be listed on the disambiguation page.
Include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article. For example, a use of the term set is discussed in the article on volleyball, so Set (disambiguation) legitimately includes an entry for "Set, a team's second contact with the ball in volleyball".
Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article includes the acronym or abbreviation—we are resolving an ambiguity, not making yet another dictionary of abbreviations. If an abbreviation is verifiable, but not mentioned in the target article, consider adding it to the target article and then adding the entry to the disambiguation page. In particular, do not include people and other things simply because of their initials, unless those initials have been widely used. John Fitzgerald Kennedy is widely known as JFK and this is discussed in the article, so the initials are appropriately disambiguated; however, Marilyn Monroe was never commonly known as "MM", nor was A. A. Milne known as either "AA" or "AAM". Omit descriptions that are obvious from the title, like (for PNP): "Philippine National Police, the national police force of the Republic of the Philippines".
Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed.
External links
Do not include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Misplaced Pages articles, not the World Wide Web. To note URLs that might be helpful in the future, include them on the talk page.
If an article has been moved to make way for the disambiguation page, use the What links here list of the moved page to access the redirect page created by the move, and replace that redirect page with the new disambiguation page.
Note that the standard link templates will actually point to a Term XYZ (disambiguation) version of the new name.
Use the red-link on an existing page to create a redirect page marked with the {{R to disambiguation page}} template.
For example, Term XYZ (disambiguation) could be redirected to the new disambiguation page Term XYZ as follows:
#REDIRECT ]
{{Redirect category shell|
{{R to disambiguation page}}
}}
Disambiguation pages are not articles and should not be categorized as such. Article categories should lead readers to relevant articles; disambiguation pages should be placed in disambiguation categories only. Some categories are automatically provided by use of the {{disambiguation}} template and parameters (geo, surname, etc.). Hidden categories may appear due to maintenance or other tags and templates, but other explicit categories (such as "Category:Mountains of Fooland") should not be used on disambiguation pages. When a disambiguation page includes a list of name-holders (in cases where the separate anthroponymy list article has not yet been created), explicit categories such as "Category:Fooish surnames" are acceptable on the disambiguation page until the anthroponymy article is split from the disambiguation page.
Deletion
Disambiguation pages can be listed for discussion at Articles for deletion. For uncontroversial cases, the simpler process of Proposed deletion is also an option. Disambiguation pages with no bluelinked entries, and those ending with (disambiguation) with only one bluelinked entry, can be summarily deleted using speedy deletion criterion G14.
A double disambiguation is an entry on a disambiguation page pointing to a more specifically named disambiguation page, rather than to an article. This kind of disambiguation is relatively rare on Misplaced Pages. In some cases, entries from the secondary page can be transcluded onto the primary disambiguation page with {{transclude list}}.
For example, Montgomery is a disambiguation page that includes a link to Montgomery County, a secondary disambiguation page. Because the intended target page is also a disambiguation page, the link is to "Montgomery County (disambiguation)" rather than directly to "Montgomery County". There are two reasons for this: One is so the page will not show up as an error needing to be fixed, and the other is so our readers know it is a link to a disambiguation page (see § Links to disambiguation pages for further information on creating intentional links to disambiguation pages).
Additionally, a page title with two parenthetical disambiguations—e.g. X (disambiguation) (disambiguation)—is malformed.
In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. As with any other term with a primary topic, it should either be the title of the article for that topic or redirect to it. See List of partially disambiguated article titles.
To corresponding disambiguation pages on other Wikipedias
A disambiguation page on the English Misplaced Pages should be connected to the corresponding disambiguation pages in other-language Wikipedias. In the default interface, these will be linked in a drop-down menu at the top (or, if using the pre-2022 settings, in Help:Interlanguage links § the sidebar). Such links are normally handled at Wikidata, which has guidelines for appropriate linking.
Links to disambiguation pages may be intentional (see below), but in many cases they are not. If a link to a disambiguation page is intended for one or another of the topics with the ambiguous name, it should be changed to link to the appropriate article. The Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links (DPL) project tracks such links and lists tools and practical suggestions for fixing them.
Links previously pointing to an article may suddenly become links to a disambiguation page. This can happen, for example, when a disambiguation page is created over a redirect, when one is moved to a title formerly occupied by an article, or when a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page. The resulting links will need to be corrected. For a handful of links, this can be done by the editors who create such disambiguation pages or propose such moves or redirect changes, or by those who carry them out. For changes with larger impacts, a task force may be needed.
Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate reports of links needing to be checked and fixed. Because these reports cannot distinguish cases where an editor has made such a link with the intent to point to the disambiguation page, the community has adopted the standard of routing all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page.
For example:
In text or in a "See also" section of an article that is not itself a disambiguation page:
Incorrect: There are many places named ]
Correct: There are many places named ]
On a disambiguation page, an intentional link to another disambiguation page that does not contain "(disambiguation)" in the title:
It may be necessary to create the redirect ("Springfield (disambiguation)" in these examples) if it does not already exist. This is described below.
When to link to a disambiguation page
With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a list of articles that is likely to include what a reader is looking for when they have typed an ambiguous term into the search box. Disambiguation pages are not articles and so should not be tagged as orphans per the Orphan criteria.
The exceptions, when an intentional link to a disambiguation page is appropriate, are:
Links from one disambiguation page to another for further disambiguation: British has a link to Britain (disambiguation) for further disambiguation.Shortcut
Exceptionally, in a "See also" list of interesting internal links where several different articles might be of interest to the reader and multiple ones are listed on the disambiguation page.
To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect—for example, link to the redirect Springfield (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "Springfield".
If you are linking within a template, such as a hatnote template, you can still use pipe syntax so that the link does not show the new qualifier. To do this, use the {{!}} character-substitution magic word.
This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. (For use in navboxes, see the {{D'}} template.) There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect instead of linking directly to the disambiguation page; redirects are "cheap" and are basically transparent to the reader.
Redirects from misspellings: Britian redirects to the "Britain" disambiguation page.
Redirects from alternative spellings if separate disambiguation pages are not warranted: Türk redirects to the Turk disambiguation page.
Redirects from variations in capitalisation, word separation, or punctuation, if separate disambiguation pages are not warranted: Bullet Proof redirects to "Bulletproof (disambiguation)".
The rule about linking through a "(disambiguation)" redirect does not apply to redirects to disambiguation pages: Do not create a double redirect, but make a redirect to the disambiguation page directly (thus Bill Cox, a redirect from an alternative name, redirects to the disambiguation page and does not go through the redirect William Cox (disambiguation)). Although it is permissible for this redirect to be made, it generally should not be linked to in an article for the same reasons direct links to disambiguation pages are discouraged.
Links to disambiguation pages can be displayed in orange in the settings under "Gadgets" by checking "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange".
US cities (such as Anaheim, California) are not considered as partial title matches when deciding whether they are the primary topic for the base name ("Anaheim"). They are considered full title matches for primary redirect concern; the only reason that many US city articles are located at the elongated title is the Misplaced Pages guideline to keep state names in titles for virtually all US cities and counties.
In running prose, it is more common in British and some other Commonwealth English varieties to use a "Windsor in Berkshire" pattern, while "Windsor, Ontario," is more common in North American English. This dialectal distinction does not apply to article titles, which follow consistent, prescribed patterns.
Communicating the actual titles of entries at variance with the base title one might expect—were the entries not ambiguous with each other—is integral to the purpose of a DAB page.
Kingston upon Hull is an exception in that – unlike most places with a generic modifier like Newcastle upon Tyne being shortened to "Newcastle" and thus not appearing at Tyne (disambiguation) – Kingston upon Hull is far more commonly shortened to "Hull".
The present form of this guideline dates to December 2020, and is the result of an earlier discussion. Previously, the text implied that closers of RM discussions should fix any resultant dablinks, but there was broad agreement against such a strong requirement.
This is an example of how to generate a link without displaying "(disambiguation)", when the link redirects to a page title without "(disambiguation)".
Can there be any doubt the topic being sought by someone entering "pro-life" in the search box is opposition to abortion? Seriously? What else do you imagine they might be looking for? Turkeys? Absurd! That's all that matters.
I'm sorry to say this, but it appears to me that many involved in this renaming decision, and, like Steven, have apparently been influential, are rank amateurs with respect to how we decide titles in Misplaced Pages. For someone familiar with WP title decision-making to argue against using some name simply because it has other uses, without even a hint of consideration about whether the use in question is primary for that name, is unheard of.
The alternative explanation is that they know this, but are deliberately being obfuscating in order to further their POV, but I seriously doubt that is the case --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
