Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:36, 10 January 2013

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

Template:DS Courtesy Notice

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

Archives by topic: Common names 1, 2, 3 Naming conflict 1, 2 Precision and accuracy

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Proposed COMMONNAME subsection

I propose adding a new subsection to COMMONNAME. Certain policies and guidelines are perceived to conflict with COMMONNAME, and an explanation of these cases can help to avoid time-wasting RMs. I've drawn up a draft at User:BDD/COMMONNAME exceptions, which I invite you to visit and potentially edit. In particular, I only know of two such policies or guidelines, so additions are welcome. You may also indicate your support for, or opposition to, this initiative, either in this section or on the draft's talk page. --BDD (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Edit: I've had this page deleted, but its content is reproduced in the collapsible box farther down in this section. --BDD (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: BDD has moved the now-redlinked draft to a collapse-box in this thread, below. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 07:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the examples you give ("Boise, Idaho vs Boise" and "Myocardial infarction vs Heart attack") are exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME... with both the city and the medical event, there are lots of sources that would support either potential title... enough that neither potential title is significantly more common than the other. We turn to the project convention because we don't have a clear COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the question I'm asking is not whether they are the common name—just whether they could be perceived as such. Since Boise redirects to Boise, Idaho, it's reasonable to assume it could be moved to just Boise; since heart attack is a much more commonly used phrase, it reasonable to assume it should be the article title (cf. Talk:Myocardial infarction#Article move, from earlier this month). My intention is to head off RMs like that. But if you have better examples, by all means, add them. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. All criteria are considered and weighed in title determinations. Consistency with other similar titles (a.k.a. following project-specific naming conventions) is just one of those criteria, and does not automatically trump others like recognizability, naturalness (i.e., common name) and conciseness. The two examples are terrible, because Boise, Idaho is an abomination (IMHO) and Myocardial infarction is about precision. If you want to head off RMs, support the following guidance.

  With very few if any exceptions, all cases of ] redirects to ] or ] redirects to ] should be non-controversial grounds for moving:

] → ]

] → ]

--Born2cycle (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My question is: why would we want to try to "head off" RMs? I see nothing wrong with suggesting that an article would be better if given a different title. This policy helps us to achieve consensus as to the best title amunst a choice of various potential titles, not to mandate what a given title "must" be. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actual improvements is one thing. But I'm talking about heading off RMs in cases where either title is ultimately fine (neither is "better"). Some people advocate for simply not participating in such discussions, or always supporting the status quo. I favor supporting policy and guidelines that reduces the incidence of such cases, by making the rules less ambiguous. Fewer exceptions. Hence my above suggestion. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective, there is only one firm rule here... 2) Titles are determined by consensus. All the rest is guidance to help us achieve consensus. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but even within that framework we can come up with guidance supported by consensus that increases or reduces ambiguity and the incidence of controversial cases. I mean, pure consensus with no guidance would be indistinguishable from a panoply of JLI/JDLI arguments. So the whole point of having guidance is to reduce controversy and pointless JLI/JDLI argumentation. This goal can be met to varying degrees depending on what policies and guidelines we choose and how ambiguous we make them. The less ambiguous and less conflicting we make the rules, the less controversy there will be. That's why I advocate for project-specific rules that minimize (ideally eliminate) conflict with our general criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Any particular algorithm, such as the one above that's claimed as "should be non-controversial grounds for moving", is going to make lots of bad calls, compared to the considered judgement of editors who can trade off the various criteria that are there to be considered. The theory that "the whole point of having guidance is to reduce controversy" seems to me to be highly suspect, and B2C's efforts guided by this theory seem to stoke more controversy than they settle. Hard and fast rules that force editors into choosing the most concise and ambiguous title are what he has been pushing for 5 years now; how about we try backing off from that, and let titles be chosen by editors instead of by algorithms? Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Algorithms make title determinations deterministically. In contrast, when these decisions are left to "the considered judgement of editors", often if not usually apparently reasonable arguments (mostly rationalizations of JDLI positions) can be made for both sides, and true consensus is never reached. Coin tossing, using an unfair coin weighted to favor the status quo, would produce results similar to what we see from "the considered judgement of editors". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that description of how it works, but even if it did work that way, I would be okay with it, since consistency is a legitimate, indeed very important, goal. NB: If someone's spouts off with the "hobgoblin" quote, I'm going to embarrass you, because that quote does not at all mean what you think it does, as I've demonstrated several times in previous discussions like this at AT/NC and MOS pages. Short version: Emerson is not only usually misquoted (he wrote of "a foolish consistency", not "consistency" generally); he was writing about avoidance of habitual patterns in life that limit one's human potential, and, as applied to writing, being free to change his mind over time, between publications; he was absolutely not writing in opposition to using consistent style and logic from one page to the next in the same publication! The same is true of virtually all similar quotations by other writers oft quoted by people who oppose (for whatever irrational reason) MOS being reasonably consistent from article to article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 07:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle, while I agree with some points you made below, on this you are coming across as giving excessive weight to conciseness (or concision, if you prefer) above all other considerations. I think you'll continue to find you don't have much support in that quest. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 07:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I appreciate the elegance of simplicity more than most. Not that I'm opposed to exceptions. Exceptions, for good reason, are fine, of course. But they should be recognized as exceptions, and the good reasons to have each should be clear. But the default, if you will, should be to favor having only the concise name be the title, unless additional descriptive information is necessary for disambiguation. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – I think the problem is that WP:COMMONNAME is often cited, instead of the WP:CRITERIA that it's supposed to support. It is not well written, as it seems to take control, with over-narrow wording like "it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used...", when it should be talking about recognizability and precision. If we rephrase it a bit, then City, State and Myocardial infarction will not be exceptions, just cases where the chosen name may not necessarily be the most common. It starts out OK with "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural" – but it might be more clear to say something like "The title of an article is typically chosen from the most common names..." with the same reason. Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That's just advocating more rules loosening and less determinism, which creates more fodder for pointless disagreements. With few exceptions, when the most common name for a topic is available, it is the title for that article's topic. That's a fact that can be verified with any significant number of clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM, and it needs to remain clearly stated in policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Born, a lot of editors feel that less determinism and more acceptance of disagreement is a good thing. It's why WP:RM exists... so editors can discuss the (often subtle) nuances that exist between different titles and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; many of us have supported looser rules and less determinism, so that edtors can actually weigh the various criteria. Much of the conflict that we see in naming is driven by the extremists, who believe that "excess precision" means anything beyond the most concise possible title, or that recognizability has no real value except to people already familiar with the topic, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that some editors want looser rules, less determinism and (thus) less agreement and more arguing. But why? To what end? We're not talking about cases where one title is clearly better than another (there is little to argue about in those cases). We're talking only about cases where, frankly, either title is fine, in terms of serving our readers. What is the point in make such cases more controversial rather than less controversial? What good comes from that? To anyone? Besides those of us love debate for the sake of debate (I'm not going to deny that obvious inclination in myself, but I recognize that's no excuse for loosening the rules, less determinism and more ultimately pointless disagreement and debating). For me, it's not pointless, because the point is to reduce the incidence of that kind of nonsense. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your inference that looser rules and less determinism would lead to more arguing seems highly suspect, especially since so much of the arguing is driven by you trying to tighten up the rules and implement algorithmic naming. We aren't going to go for that, you've probably noticed by now. Dicklyon (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I measure my achievements in the area of titles in terms of titles that were controversial in the past, and are now stable. Getting there sometimes means one RM discussion. In other cases it takes years. But in the end it's about title predictability, consistency and stability. It is for me. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should have 'WP:NOT#BOOLEAN' as a part of WP:NOT.

"I understand that some editors want looser rules, less determinism and (thus) less agreement and more arguing. But why? To what end? We're not talking about cases where one title is clearly better than another (there is little to argue about in those cases)". Firstly, the above statement itself is a fallacy because it causally links the lower determinism with less agreement or more argumentation; it also implies that the level of determinism at present is free from arguments. Secondly, the "end" is to put an end to the delusion that there is only one of when they are in fact abundant number of them although an article has yet to be created for the others. The acceptance and adoption of the naming convention for US cities (ie ) is a reflection of the real world where there are several Plains or Redwoods, for example. That principle should be enlarged so that the user won't have to even have to hover over a link, let alone to click one, to know that the subject is or isn't what they were looking for. -- Ohconfucius  02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, the underlying common theme of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DISAMBIGUATION and concision and recognizability is that distinguishing a given article's topic from other uses not covered in WP, and making a topic recognizable to readers unfamiliar with that topic from the title itself, are not purposes of WP article titles. Adding these purposes to WP article titles would indicate we should be using a different title for probably the majority of our titles. This can be quickly verified by making a few clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM which will immediately reveal any number of titles for which the topic is not recognizable to anyone not familiar with the topic (e.g., Beerzerveld, Live at Short's 2005, John H. Long, Osbald of Northumbria, Lex Manilia), or by recognizing that the existence of any dab page at name (disambiguation), like Redwood (disambiguation), indicates the existence of an article (or redirect to an article) at name (like Redwood) which is ambiguous with the other uses of name listed on the dab page, not to mention those that may not be covered on WP.

Repurposing titles like this leads to conflicts because now we have conflicting purposes for titles, and, thus, ostensibly reasonable arguments based on recognized purposes for different titles for the same article. Continuing to go down that path will necessarily lead to more conflict, disagreement and debate. To what end?

The examples of Plains or Redwoods are irrelevant because both are dab pages listing multiple uses on WP of those names on WP respectively. There is little debate about titles of articles like that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is probably going nowhere. I'll leave my draft below for anyone who wants to run with it. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• That said, add WP:NCROY to the list of policies and guidelines that can conflict with COMMONNAME. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That was true in the past and the inconsistency has been largely rectified over the years. For those monarchs that "have a name by which they are clearly most commonly known ... and which identifies them unambiguously... this name is usually chosen as the article title". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Not necessary. Our two choices are always common use and official name, and it can certainly be argued that Boise, Idaho, is a form of official name, as is Myocardial infarction. Along with official, we include scientific name, as well as technical name. Apteva (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Two comments here... 1) I have a problem with saying that there is always a choice between the official name and the common usage... in many, if not most cases, the most common usage actually IS the official name (ie the official name is what the most number of sources use).

2) Something that we do not address in this Policy (yet) is the issue of source quality... and how quality interacts with commonness (or quantity). This is where the "Myocardial Infarction" vs. "Heart Attack" debate is instructive. Determining which of these two terms is the WP:COMMONNAME actually depends on the selection of sources. "Myocardial Infarction" is actually the more commonly used term of the two, if you limit the selection to scholarly medical sources. "Heart Attack" on the other hand is more commonly used if you include non-scholarly sources.

Now... there is (I think) a valid argument for saying that in a medicine related article, scholarly sources should be given much more weight than non-scholarly sources. Scholarly sources are considered relatively more reliable... and this should have an effect on determining commonality. In other words... WP:COMMONNAME needs to account for quality as well as quantity. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

But "scholarly" is mixing up the notions of quality and specialization. I wouldn't generally put specialized sources ahead of high-quality sources written for a general audience. I understand it came out as you say with Heart attack being a redirect to the more technical medical term, but that seems like an outlier from normal WP title style, doesn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dick. I had assumed that Heart attack was a dab page listing all kinds of specific diseases referred to generally/commonly as a "heart attack". But with Heart attack redirecting to the article, that's definitely an outlier. Seem like a blatant violation of common name to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I also concur, strongly, with DickLyon and Born2cycle on this, and would further say we should explicitly put high-quality, general audience sources before academic ones when it comes to both article naming and (not relevant here, but at WP:RS) general article prose. Far too many medical and hard-science articles on WP are already essentially impenetrable to anyone but people who at least have undergraduate degrees in the field covered by the article; they're categorically unencylopedic. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 07:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Having the article named "Myocardial infarction" rather than "Heart attack" is a pretty clear violation of normal naming convention. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to start a fight, and I don't agree that it's "blatant", but I think it's a good example of where the specialist camps have won out in getting a consensus that looks a bit odd compared to the usual consensus in other parts of WP. Not as odd as the capitalization in birds, dog breeds, Halley's Comet, and such, which derive from specialist-group recommendations and are at odd with the general advice of the MOS. I'm sure there are other examples of specialists' influence in choosing a COMMONNAME as well. Dicklyon (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... I did not intend to start a fight either... my point was simply that in assessing commonness (a function of quantity), we should look at quality as well. If we have a choice between two names or terms... one commonly used by high-quality sources, and the other commonly used by low-quality sources, I think we should generally follow the high-quality sources... even if there are more low-quality sources when you actually count them up. This would still apply the concept of WP:COMMONNAME... but also takes the quality of each group of sources into account. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Good. I have no problem putting higher weight on higher-quality sources. Of course, when it comes down to arguments, people are going to see quality where they see it. So, more generally, I'd say we need to keep COMMONNAME in perspective, as just one strategy in support of one title criterion: recognizability. Too often editors act as if the title will automatically be chosen by what's most common (in the sources that they prefer). Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Existing guidance on this is sufficient, and too many people are WP:COMMONNAME fetishists as it is, who cannot seem to recognize that it is moderated by WP:COMMONSENSE, as well as various issues raised by WP:MOS, etc. Codifing just two cases, and in such a way that suggests it has anything at all to do with wikiprojects and their project-level "guidelines", is hazardous, as any number of WP:ARBCOM decisions reining in wayward WP:OWNish projects, and the introduction of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to limit them further, both demonstrate. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 06:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the links goes to a wikiproject page. MOS:MED is clearly part of the MOS. WP:USPLACE is, like WP:AT, not part of the MOS but appears to be "above" it. So neither have anything to do with WP:OWN or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. There are good reasons for taking especial care with the titles of articles that people may read for medical advice, just as there are for the content and sources, which is why WP:MEDRS exists. All that said, I don't think that the proposed addition is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Common names

There are a number of problems with this section.

1. There are seven times as many examples (21) of this simple principle than are needed.
2. Comet Hale-Bopp was deliberately added solely as an attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point.
3. Comet Hale-Bopp is not even commonly spelled using an endash - it is both correctly and per common use spelled with a hyphen, so what is it doing in the common names section?
4. Hale-Bopp is both the official name and the common name. Just like people, many comets have the same name, so there is a designation, sort of like an ID#, but it is not a part of the name.
5. Hale-Bopp is not a good example to use because it is currently incorrectly spelled. If it is used, it should be spelled correctly, with a hyphen, but with over 15 examples already the point is made five times over, even without including it as an example.

I would recommend including the following, please edit this list to choose a consensus list of which ones to include.--Apteva (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It would have been more straightforward to simply clarify COMMONNAME so it says that it does or doesn't apply to dashes (or punctuation, or you might prefer the more nebulous word "style"). Or has that been tried, and abandoned for lack of a consensus? Art LaPella (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That is covered in WP:Title punctuation. But the number of examples here was getting ridiculous. Bear in mind that there are two types of names that can be used, official or common name. Apteva (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I understand your frustration that Hale–Bopp was added to the examples. Yes, everyone knows you don't like it. But please assume good faith, rather than attributing the worst motives. In fact it is an excellent example to include, because that is the form used in the WP article Comet Hale–Bopp, and it is included also at WP:MOS (after thorough testing of consensus in the Great Dash Consultation of 2011, with which you are familiar). Its occurrence both here and at MOS helps editors understand the mechanisms in play at each of these major resource pages. There is no disharmony between title policy here and style guidelines at MOS. A small minority wants to find and even promote conflict; but most editors are fed up with that. Please back off. Consensus at RFC/Apteva over such disruption is clear. ☺ Noetica 02:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with frustration with Hale-Bopp. It is absolute stupidity to use Comet Hale–Bopp with a dash when that is a) not its name and b) not the name it is commonly known as, in a section called "Common names". It was clearly put there simply to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. But seriously, using a comet as an example? There are only a few dozens of comet articles. But Halley's is no better - Halley's is its full name. Apteva (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed Hale~Bopp to Halley's to avoid hyphen/dash drama. The list has begun to get bloated of late, however. Perhaps a paring is warranted? Dohn joe (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no drama really, Dohn joe: except for those who need it to promote a partisan view that was set aside as against consensus, in 2011. I have argued in support of the harmonious use of examples at WP:MOS and here. If you want to promote disharmony, that is your choice. But the time for tolerating the view that clashes are normal is over. If the list of examples needs trimming, go ahead and trim it. But leave the most instructive examples in place, so that editors can see how the policies and guidelines work together to promote excellence and certainty in the development of Misplaced Pages.

I have restored that instructive example. Noetica 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the typical edit warring that goes on at the MOS. There is absolutely no consensus to replace Halley's with Hale-Bopp. "Undid revision by User:Dohn joe; the inclusion of Comet Hale–Bopp has supported with argument on the talkpage, as reflecting a well-tested consensual form instructively included at WP:MOS also, and as at the WP article itself; discuss!" This is absolute nonsense. Apteva (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Noetica, I'm glad you saw the point of it, which was to help dispel Apteva's unsupported idea that MOS and TITLE are in conflict, by using an example where COMMONNAME is not the same as common style. The Comet Hale–Bopp example is particularly apt, since an editor elicited a statement from the IAU (the naming authority for comets) that the name itself (with hyphen or otherwise) is not offically preferred, but that the official designation should be used. So, since WP prefers common names, this is a good contrast. Since WP also has a manual of style, this is a good chance to show that the MOS styling is not in conflict with using the common name. There may be other good examples we could use here, but this one was current, and Apteva's oddball take on it was firmly rejected by an overwhelming consensus at the RFC/U. Nobody else objected, so it seems like a good item to keep, even if we do reduce the list. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's that word point. This was solely put there to attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. "I'm glad you saw the point of it". Apteva (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, the word "point" is not by itself of interest. The mere fact that Dicklyon happened to use it does not show WP:POINTiness. The inclusion was not with you in mind personally; but it has the great benefit of illustrating how things work consensually on Misplaced Pages, as opposed to a view you hold that has been set aside as non-consensual.

It so happens that yes, you sought to have the article Comet Hale–Bopp moved; and consensus was against that move. It so happened that yes, you have tried at many forums, many times, to bend policy and guidelines your way; but consensus is revealed as contrary to that way.

Good guidelines and good policy do not shy away from ruling on cases that have been controversial but are now settled. Such settled precedents and decisions are exactly what editors look for in policy and guidelines.

Move on?

Noetica 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• No consensus to add 'Comet Hale-Bopp': Considering the recent, intense discussions to force dashes into titles where the wp:COMMONNAME has used hyphens for over 120 years (as: Michelson-Morley experiment), then the addition of endashed title "Comet Hale–Bopp" (where both the dash and the word "Comet" have been questioned) was certain to generate controversy, and could be judged as easily disruptive to editing the policy wp:TITLE. Might as well list "Pro–abortion (not pro-choice)" as an example and expect no controversy. I have removed example "Comet Hale~Bopp" until clear consensus to re-add. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Use italics only for italicized species or such: Another major issue is the rampant use of italics, where instead, many editors have spent years to clearly italicize films, genus or species names. I suggest to use prefix "not:" (with colon) and italicize the Guinea pig's species name, "Cavia porcellus" (as the official alternative):

• Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)
• Caffeine (not: 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione)
• Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)

Also, perhaps add an example of an italicized species name, and a film name, as the common names. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion on formatting. It's much clearer and less ambiguous. I also think a film title would serve as an easily recognizable example of what to do and what not to do. How about an "English vs. foreign" example, like "Seven Samurai (not: Shichinin no Samurai)", and/or a "short vs. long" example, like "Dr. Strangelove (not: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb) szyslak (t) 14:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is much better. The colon adds nothing, nor does the italics, especially because one of the examples is in italics. But please, if anyone wants something included, just add it to the draft above - but also, if someone removes it, obviously the addition needs to reach consensus before it is re-added. I took out guinea pig because it duplicates the caffeine example. Both, though, are excellent examples of the principle involved. Apteva (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to add Guinea pig or a movie? Apteva (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Are any other examples needed, or are three plenty? Apteva (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Halley

Since this is about common names, rather than hyphen usage, I have replaced HB with Halley. The next person to change it gets an Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement block. *points to yellow light up top* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not from you, though. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not involved. I don't care which way the hyphen goes, I care about people edit warring over it. Therefore, I've removed the reason to edit war, which I have the authority under WP:Discretionary sanctions to do.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I care about people edit warring over it—So why did you participate in the edit war? Should I block you, or did your edit warring come in just in time? I think you're involved now that you took a side. The debate was: is Hale–Bopp an instructive example or is a needless distraction b/c it has controversial punctuation? You took a side. You seem involved to me. I don't have a problem with the WP:AC/DS warning, but you shouldn't be the one to do it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I stopped an edit war by removing a needlessly-controversial example. That's NOT involved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The entire edit war was over the question about whether to include it. How can taking a side on that not make you involved? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry this is probably not the best place to discuss this, I'll take this elsewhere.ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion related to this at Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy that is parallel to discussions at WikiProject Editor Retention about bullying behavior by admins. Neotarf (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I didn't mean to start a fight (much less a wheel war), just wanted to see if anyone objected. Apteva and WIkid77 do. There's plenty of evidence elsewhere that consensus is against them on the relevant point, that COMMONNAME is not about styling. I think we'd be better off to address that directly, with some words to say that the MOS specifies styling and that COMMONNAME is not saying take the common styling. I don't have time to draft the language right now, but if someone wants to, I expect it will not be hard to get to a consensus (that doesn't make these two happy). Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That clearly then would not be a consensus, and this is a non-starter. By the way, it is not a wheel war just because an admin reverts another admin - it would be a wheel war if another admin reverted the last edit because it was done as an admin action. The previous edits were just an edit war, and the editor who was an admin who was participating in the edit war was not doing so as an admin. Or might I say soon to be former admin if that activity continues. Apteva (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS disagrees with you over what a consensus would be. On Misplaced Pages, it doesn't mean 100% agreement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nor does it ever mean 100% agreement when large groups are involved, but it does mean that if there are valid disagreements, there is no consensus. "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's norms." (emphasis added) The very core of using consensus is that even if 6,000 agree with something and only one disagrees, that one just might be right. By the way, though, the origin of consensus decision making was the argument that there could never be more than one correct answer, and as such when that answer was found everyone would certainly all agree. Apteva (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. And such effort has been made, although not to your satisfaction. So it goes, and consensus is still achieved. The very core of using consensus is that even if the one voice might be right, it's better for the encyclopedia to continue on with the consensus rather than grind to a halt while that one continually tries to sway each of the other 6,000. You don't appear to allow that the one voice might be wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WP does grind to a halt occasionally, but only due to server issues, and then only briefly. There is never a reason to not bring up issues when they are observed. If two, three, or a dozen editors want to discuss an issue for a megabyte or a gigabyte, that will never have even one iota of any impact on wikipedia or on any other editor. Telling any of those editors not to bring it up or not to discuss it though, is a huge problem, and violates the basic principles of Misplaced Pages. Apteva (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, JHJ. Firm consensus has been settled on this issue, and it is a blemish on Wikipedian process that the result of a consensus cannot be enshrined instructively on a policy page, because one side militantly refuses to accept it. And by the very title and first line of this section (initiated by Sarek himself), he has bullied his way into the dispute in a way that assists a disruptive minority. That's all I intend to say here on a topic introduced by Sarek himself. Admin Erik was right to take the matter to Sarek's talkpage; I have contributed there too, and I suggest that others do the same. Noetica 22:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A review of how comet Hale-Bopp (and by the way correcting Hale—Bopp in another editors comment is not appropriate) got into the MOS reveals that there was no consensus for it to be included, and is far from being a "firm consensus". Apteva (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

While it may be technically accurate to say that "COMMONNAME is not about styling", it's a point that ignores the broader principle upon which COMMONNAME is based: follow usage in reliable sources. Now, if there is no clear and obvious answer from usage in RS, then it makes sense to look at our own conventions. But if a given style is clearly most commonly used in RS, we should reflect that in WP, and it is not to be trumped by some arcane MOS guidance. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Apteva (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Born2cycle (see discussions about Presidents etc. below). I'd also think that sometimes it's wise to be flexible and pragmatic and let COMMONSENSE trump MOS for the same reason: (1) if it doesn't matter: i.e. if the article(s) in question are very minor articles—they get few pageviews, so they don't affect the perceived quality of Misplaced Pages—then it doesn't make a lot of sense for people to be endlessly warring over them, (2) if following MOS rules (grammatical rules) would result in an article that looks messy and inconsistent to many people—a word being capitalized in some places and not in others—or disrespectful, and so would result in endless edit warring, then a little flexibility can eliminate a lot of grief, as per the President(s) vs. president(s) RfCs:
• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles of people .282.29
• Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Requested move  
• (Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#List of WP:JOBTITLES articles)
• LittleBen (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Backwards. (1) If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't make a lot of sense for people to be endlessly warring over them; but it takes two sides to make a war. (2) This isn't about exceptions to a guideline (see WP:GUIDES) where it isn't even obvious that the guideline applies. This is about disregarding a specific MoS guideline altogether in the case of Hale–Bopp, against consensus and without bothering to change the guideline. If that attitude doesn't cause edit warring, it's hard to imagine what would. Art LaPella (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately there are other guidelines, like "Use English", that have been widely ignored because some people prefer to intimidate people who try to follow guidelines—and recruit armies to ram through their POV in RfCs and RfMs—rather than try to change MOS. Sometimes it makes sense to defer to regional English usage or to the (peculiar, or otherwise) usage of people who are specialists in a particular narrow field, rather than try to impose one set of rules on the whole world. Sometimes real-world usage doesn't follow MOS (or dictionaries, for that matter). In Misplaced Pages, we are surely supposed to report established real-world stuff rather than create "original research". LittleBen (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English) is vague, and interpretable or misinterpretable (it excludes diacritics, if you're resurrecting that issue). Hale–Bopp is an explicit example at WP:ENDASH. If you don't think Misplaced Pages is supposed to say Hale–Bopp, argue your case there. All horizontal line crusaders should be quarantined to that one talk page. Art LaPella (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think the issue is worth arguing about, but do I think it would be a good idea to invite ONLY people who have contributed to the Hale-Bopp article to an RfC on the topic of hyphens vs. dashes in that article, rather than have people who have never contributed to the article and have no interest in—or knowledge of—the topic trying to bully the contributors around. LittleBen (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If the guideline has no practical effect, it should be removed. Art LaPella (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd agree, but it's like many laws that are no longer relevant—they are not repealed because that would be too costly and too much trouble—and so they are ignored. I'd like to think that a Simple MOS would eliminate attempts to micromanage Misplaced Pages, but there will always be people who insist that MOS is the final word, and that the Strunk and White approach to English is rubbish. ;-) LittleBen (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We should also limit any discussion of titles to those working on the article, so that WP:TITLE is not used to bully people who don't like it. For instance, people working on Korean topics might prefer an article title to be written in hangul, and it's nobody else's business. Likewise, references shouldn't be required if the people actually working on the article don't want to use them. And only people who actually helped write an article should be allowed to vote on it becoming FA. — kwami (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• <Quote>For instance, people working on Korean topics might prefer an article title to be written in hangul, and it's nobody else's business.<Unquote> For instance, people working on Korean topics in English Misplaced Pages might prefer much of an article to be written in Hangul, but a majority of users would not be able to read it, so surely they would be creating huge usability and accessibility problems for the majority of users if they were allowed to get away with this. Reliable references are also important. LittleBen (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Hale–Bopp guideline isn't repealed because it's a consensus. One thing we can be sure of is that it isn't "ignored"!
• Hale–Bopp editors are experts on the comet's orbit etc. but not on punctuation. But if every article chooses its own style, just change the MOS to an essay and I'll find something else to do.
• Simple MOS wasn't intended to change the MOS's authority. It just makes it easier to understand.
• Strunk & White is a style manual, so MOS is the appropriate place to promote them too. Art LaPella (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The irony is that MOS is probably not used (or little used) by people who write, or polish up, featured articles—they already know how to write good English. MOS is also not used (or little used) by people who might benefit from it—because pieces of it are scattered all over the place, rather than the all the pieces that make up MOS being in a well-indexed and categorized, individually-searchable MOS namespace. LittleBen (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"I think it would be a good idea to invite ONLY people who have contributed to the Hale-Bopp article to an RfC on the topic of hyphens vs. dashes in that article, rather than have people who have never contributed to the article and have no interest in—or knowledge of—the topic trying to bully the contributors around." Really this exact topic has been discussed numerous times, at the CHB talk page and elsewhere. See this. Also, I think you should check out WP:SSF. AgnosticAphid talk 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Strunk&White, despite being titled "The Elements of Style" is not a style guide in the sense that the MOS is supposed to be a style guide - a description of how articles are constructed. Instead it is a guide to good writing. All of the advice from Strunk&White that is in the MOS does not belong there, because it is beyond the charter of the MOS to attempt to teach good writing and correct punctuation. Apteva (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ea I have ever seen in my seven+ years as an editor here, even counting the 10 or so tendentious "capitalization warriors" at a certain zoology project.] WT:AT very badly needs to make it clear that it follows naming usage in reliable sources, not style usage, which is completely severable from the core facts of a name (it's Hale and Bopp, not Hall and Boop, and it goes in Hale–Bopp order, not Bopp–Hale, and "comet" comes before not after, and in English, etc.). Style is what MOS is for. AT has no reason to ever get involved in what glyph is being used for what purpose, or any other style matter; that's utterly outside AT's scope. AT and the NC pages necessarily and demonstrably derive their style guidance directly from MOS. This is and always has been the case, otherwise we would have tens, even hundreds, of thousands of articles whose titles did not agree with even the first sentence of their lead sections. QED.

PS: As I've pointed out everywhere Apteva and his gang try to ask yet another WP:PARENT, a) online sources lean towards hyphen for simple expedience (keyboards don't have dash keys), so it's a meaningless statistic (even aside from the fact that online prose is prone to ungrammaticality and sloppy style); and b) offline sources cannot be proven to be doing one thing or another – without access to the exact font files used by the desktop publishing system that eventually resulted in the print publication, Apteva or whoever cannot prove what glyph is actually being used, since many fonts make no size distinction between hyphens and dashes at all. MOS routinely picks one option from various available options and says "do this on Misplaced Pages, for consistency"; this is such a case, and that is what MOS exists to do. MOS is by definition prescriptive; it is an in-house style manual, just like that at the New York Times or a the British Journal of Herpetology or whatever. If a grand total of four editors simply refuse to let this sink in and cannot stop disrupting WT:MOS and other forums with their obsessive, non-stop whinging about hyphenation, then they need to walk away, or the community will make them walk away, via WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM if comes to that. WP:5THWHEEL and WP:NOTHERE are strongly applicable to these four. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What, more disruptive than the date delinking drama? The underlying problem is that Misplaced Pages is based on a public academic subculture. Therefore, it lacks a good way to prevent dramas from continuing for months or years. Therefore, refusing to cooperate, and making common cause with others who won't cooperate, is the easiest way to get more attention than Jimbo. It wasn't this bad when I worked for Boeing. Art LaPella (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The well-established harmony between WP:TITLE and WP:MOS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Superseded by an RFC (below on this talkpage)

Noetica 06:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

To address points raised by Born2cycle above, in a section concerned with a specific point of editing and with administrative oversight of WP:TITLE, I am starting a new section, with a sequence of numbered points. (Responses below my post please, not within it.–Noetica)

Born2cycle:

1. There is no lack of accord between the two long-established pages WP:MOS and WP:TITLE. Each has its role on Misplaced Pages. A small minority does not like this. You speak pejoratively of "some arcane MOS guidance"; but it is all derived consensually – arguably far more consensually than certain tight and untested algorithms that have been promoted and included in WP:TITLE.
2. Note especially: ArbCom sought in 2011 to resolve a long dispute over hyphens and en dashes in titles (notably Mexican–American War). It called for a community effort to settle the matter once and for all. The effort began at WT:MOS, and was soon moved to a huge subpage of WP:MOS by PMAnderson. So that MOS subpage was initiated by the most implacable activist against MOS at the time. The matter was resolved, to the satisfaction of ArbCom and almost everyone else, through wide well-advertised consultancy involving 60 editors. Included squarely in that consensus was specific acceptance of Comet Hale–Bopp, and rejection of the form with a hyphen.
3. Clearly then, ArbCom itself recognises the crucial role of MOS, and the inevitable inclusion of article titles in the scope of MOS.
4. MOS is not obliged to use reliable sources in fashioning Misplaced Pages style guidelines. Provisions for reliable sources explicitly address articles. However, MOS does respect all relevant reliable sources anyway (far more than anything in WP:TITLE ever has): and those are major dictionaries, major style guides, specialist style guides, and best-practice publishers. That is how manuals of style work. No other take on how to develop a genuine manual of style is at all coherent.
5. A small majority fail to understand this history, and these ideas. It would be helpful if they would take a fresh look at the situation. If they refuse to do so, the community is justified in asserting itself. We should follow well-established consensus; we should make policy and guideline provisions fit consensus, rather than contorting them to accommodate views known to be against consensus.
6. Consensus can change on these matters; but no change has been demonstrated. Noisy persistence from a few is no mark of changed opinion in the community.

Noetica 00:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Claiming that reliable sources (and NPOV) are irrelevant as guides to proper English usage is surely like saying that (your) "original research" is preferable to reliable sources. To state your claim backwards: reliable sources are not obliged to follow MOS, and common usage is not obliged to follow grammar textbooks or dictionaries. Surely common usage defines what goes in dictionaries, not the other way around. LittleBen (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Which is also what encyclopedias do - while they are traditionally written by experts in each field, those experts do not put their current, unpublished research into the articles, but stick with established well agreed facts. The current MOS has strayed far from what it should be saying. FYI, Arbcom does not address content disputes, but only conduct disputes. MOS has a huge conduct problem. Apteva (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Little Ben:

• Who makes that claim, though? I certainly don't. I collect and study works that serve as "reliable sources" for MOS. Do you? And of course "common usage defines what goes in dictionaries", as you write. Who says otherwise? I don't!

Apteva:

• For most of that, I can't see the relevance. As for a "huge conduct problem" at MOS, RFC/U is an appropriate means for dealing with any such impediment to collegial development of the guidelines. So is ArbCom, if necessary. The problems that were solved in 2011 were basically conduct problems, and the solution was to get clear about the content of MOS and to confirm that the provisions there do apply to titles. ArbCom oversaw the process, with a profound effect on conduct generally, but also on clarity in the style guidelines and on the question of their coverage. Let's hope we don't need a repeat of it all, as some people seem determined to bring about. It is unfair when others are swept up in the ensuing turmoil – others, who simply want to achieve consensus decisions and then see them implemented.

Noetica 02:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• <To quote you:> 4. MOS is not obliged to use reliable sources in fashioning Misplaced Pages style guidelines. <Unquote> (Incidentally, I don't think that MOS fashions Misplaced Pages style guidelines. Surely individual people fashion the Misplaced Pages style guidelines in MOS.) LittleBen (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So what? That is not the same as what you attribute to me: "Claiming that reliable sources (and NPOV) are irrelevant as guides to proper English usage." And you completely ignore my continuation anyway, along with my direct question to you. Read, study, think, ... and then perhaps respond. (The order is important.) As for "MOS fashions", that's an ordinary and harmless use of metonymy. Noetica 02:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to wade through all that. Show me a link to something that substantiates with community consensus or an arbcom decision that MOS trumps clear usage in reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. That's not what I said, anyway. Focus. WP:MOS and WP:TITLE are not at loggerheads in a game of cards. They are in harmony, though a minority refuses to accept their accord. WP:TITLE is about choice of titles for articles; MOS is about styling all parts of all articles, including of course their titles. ArbCom accepts that, as explained above in detail. So does almost everyone else. If it were otherwise, consistency within articles could not be achieved for a start.
Noetica 02:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom does not deal with content, only conduct. What they did say, is that MOS does not affect content. Article titles are content. Apteva (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, article titles are content. And like all other content, styling is applied to them. And that is the province of MOS. That is the view that ArbCom endorsed; and it is almost impossible to articulate a coherent alternative. Noetica 08:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• <To quote you again:> 4. MOS is not obliged to use reliable sources in fashioning Misplaced Pages style guidelines. <Unquote> (Incidentally, I don't think that MOS fashions Misplaced Pages style guidelines. Surely individual people fashion the Misplaced Pages style guidelines in MOS.) LittleBen (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Who the blank is "you"? And please, do not answer that question. Per WP:FOC focus on content, not on the participants in the discussion. As stated above, "MOS is not obliged..." works far better. Yeesh. But no, Title and MoS currently conflict with each other, and that can only be fixed at MoS, not here. Delete the section on Article titles and replace it with "Article titles are determined by the Misplaced Pages:Article titles policy." If the MoS says nothing about titles it is impossible for it to be in conflict with Title. Apteva (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but I suspect that you will continue to complain that it is, since your objection is to any consensus that you disagree with. — kwami (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  It is certainly worth trying. I know that I will not complain about any consensus (by definition of consensus). Apteva (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Little Ben, why do you repeat the same post (see 02:37, 4 January 2013, then also 03:02, 4 January), almost word for word? I answered you the first time. Please strike out the second occurrence, because it might unfairly appear as if I had not answered you. Noetica 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Ben thinks he was unclear, or your answer did not satisfy. There is zero reason to ask someone to strike what is not a personal attack or other objectionable content such as a BLP violation. You can try to respond again, or ignore, your choice. KillerChihuahua 05:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not so, KillerChihuahua. There is excellent reason for such a request. In fact, I gave the excellent reason. Little Ben has posted a few times here without considering readability, and a few of us have had to refactor so everyone can follow the discussion. Little Ben quoted me out of context – and the context I had given made perfectly clear what I meant. It is captious and juvenile to do such a thing, and then to do it again, when the flaw had already been pointed out once. ♥
Noetica 06:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Refractoring another's post is discouraged. What can be done is ask the editor in question on their talk page if they could refractor it, but if they choose not to, or never make another edit, it is best left as it was. The exceptions are fixing indenting and changing section headings to a more neutral heading, or placing new sections at the bottom of the page, but that is about it. See WP:TPO for details. The purpose is not so that it is understandable, but so that it does not offend anyone. Apteva (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure refactoring actual talkpage comments is discouraged (though there are exceptions). The refactoring that others have done to correct around Little Ben's interruptions of posts, and confusing fragmentation, are perfectly standard. And I, for one, will not strike out his inexplicably repeated post, which I had already fully addressed. Better that he fix that. Noetica 08:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Better that you ignore it, rather than bother asking him to strike it. KillerChihuahua 12:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Noetica, given the well-established harmony, long practiced, and the months of discussions that clearly reject Apteva's claims of a conflict, it seems that we need to put something more explicit into the title policy page, since the same tired arguments have been brought to complain about a clarifying example. Perhaps a COMMONSTYLE section that says titles are styled in common with the text, according to the MOS, and that COMMONNAME doesn't mean we defer to content sources for style. Obviously this is not in conflict with our respect for sources, for both content and style, since we use style sources for style issues and content sources for content issues. If you or someone will draft some language, it shouldn't be hard to converge on an appropriate clarification. There are already words to that effect in the MOS, so maybe we just need to include something like a copy of those. It may be hard in the current disruptive climate, where certain editors won't admit what consensus clearly has established, so I'm wondering what suggestions others have, too. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I would like to see that consensus confirmed, and formally incorporated into WP:TITLE. So far it's only there only implicitly, since the page barely touches on style matters (the province of MOS, as ArbCom and almost everyone else sees it). I agree also that this may not be the right time. A silly season, as everyone settles down after Christmas and New Year. On top of that, delayed resolution of an RFC/U is holding up development at WT:MOS, and here too I'm afraid.

So I would defer the matter for a couple of weeks at least, then check whether the talkpages are more settled and ready for collegial work.
Noetica 06:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest linking to the relevant part of MoS in the See Also, and leaving it at that. Duplication of content is undesirable, and lengthening any policy any more than necessary doubly so. You cannot prevent all title disagreements by adding MoS to the AT policy page; I venture to say you will prevent none or close enough to none as to make the additions a negative net on the policy. KillerChihuahua 12:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is already linked in See also. I added a brief note there about what can be found there. Probably it makes sense to link it in the COMMONNAME section as well, as that's where the confusion seems to come up with a few editors. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. This is perennial nonsense based on ignorance of the AT–MOS relationship that Noetica outlines so cogently at the top of this thread. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 06:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• The conflict talked about above seems to me to rest solely in the minds of certain editors who cannot accept the non-binary or non-algorithmic nature of this publication. They can shout about it until they turn blue, but it won't affect the fact that reliable sources are not determinate in such a case. The use of hyphens and dashes is highly trivial to the majority of editors. Their use is purely a matter of editorial preference of this encyclopaedia, and we are free to so determine from time to time – in consideration or in denial of other sources, and a minor one at that. -- Ohconfucius  06:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed that the proposed intrusion of MoS content into this policy is not a good idea; and that most editors couldn't give a rat's ass about hyphens vs. dashes; cluttering up the policy with minutiae on such matters is unlikely to cause some reversal in this. If they care, they'll wade through the MoS; if they don't, cluttering up this page with it won't help. KillerChihuahua 12:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  There is no question of intrusion, KillerChihuahua. You seem in thrall to the myth that content and styling of content are not separable. Well, they must be separable. By definition. The associated myth is that this policy and those guidelines are in conflict – a tug of war over article titles. Wrong! It's just that a few editors, who cannot accept well-settled consensus at MOS and who are welded to minority opinions about style, refuse to accept the role of MOS on Misplaced Pages. And they cause disruption over what should be a non-issue. PMAnderson was banned, then blocked for a year; when he comes back he will still have an indefinite topic ban. That suggests the level of fanaticism the developers of a consensual MOS must contend with. They don't want an interminable fight! Nor does ArbCom. It called for, supervised, and accepted unprecedentedly consensual refinements to style guidelines (that is, of course, at MOS) to deal with poor behaviour from such zealots. And it was all about article titles. The present conduct difficulties are just a re-run of the first round. Editors at MOS are totally fed up with it all, and I'm sure they look forward to formal endorsement of a current RFC/U that definitively rejects such disruption.
  Better perhaps if you spoke for yourself, rather than asserting uncivilly "most editors couldn't give a rat's ass about hyphens vs. dashes". Belittling the dedicated work in a sector of Misplaced Pages that you neither know nor care much about is unbecoming. Stick to whatever you might be good at, and let others get on with work that is their specialty, and their contribution to a better encyclopedia. Noetica 13:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  You clearly didn't understand me; let me try to be more clear. MoS is already bloated; there is no reason, and significant reason not, to place what is properly MoS here. Adding such detail here would have, among other things, a discouraging effect on editor contribution. This is not desirable. It would also replicate instructions, which is to be avoided, as that is the road to contradictions as editors change one and not the other. Is that clear enough, or should I rephrase again? KillerChihuahua 16:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  KC, is anyone suggesting doing that? ie, copying a bunch of stuff from MOS to here? If so would you give me a pointer to that proposal? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Here; "Perhaps a COMMONSTYLE section that says titles are styled in common with the text, according to the MOS, Obviously this is not in conflict with our respect for sources, for both content and style, since we use style sources for style issues and content sources for content issues. If you or someone will draft some language, it shouldn't be hard to converge on an appropriate clarification. There are already words to that effect in the MOS, so maybe we just need to include something like a copy of those. " KillerChihuahua 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Ok; I don't read that as suggesting copying any "such detail" here, duplicating instructions. I think Dicklyon is just suggesting that there be a comment that article titles should be styled as the phrase would appear in the text of the article. See the WP:TITLEFORMAT section, there's already a note there that capitalization should be as in running text except for the first letter, there could be another comment about style/punc also being as it would in running text. Was that your take on Dicklyon's suggestion? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Links to the ArbCom-ruling-initiated discussion that yielded dashed version of the comet name: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 123#Dashes: a completed consensual draft for inclusion in WP:MOS (click to reveal the draft), from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Arbitration motion regarding hyphens and dashes, from http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=429209333#Hyphens_and_dashes. If what's gone before is too long for you to read, you should not assume that the it doesn't exist until someone else digests it for you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  The essential links, JHJ. Thanks for tabling them here. But will you please clarify: you are addressing B2C, right? Noetica 13:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  His were the comments that prompted me to dig up those links, yep. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

JHunterJ thank you for those links, I skimmed them and I do not see where information on this debate was published on this talk page (presumably it is in the archives of this talk page), and I do not see where the decision was agreed that the MOS should override COMMONNAME or where Arbcom accepted that decision.

"The well-established harmony between WP:TITLE and WP:MOS" Yes the MOS is a guideline and this is a policy, nothing in the MOS is binding on this policy and I think that all wording in the MOS that implies it is ought to be removed. I am not concerned with what should be done as a style, (whether a hyphen or an ndash some other thing is used within a title) when an outside authority has not mandated what to use -- I see this as similar to converting UPPERCASE names to first letter upper-case followed by lower-case.

A an aside it seems to me that the debate about Mexican–American War or Mexican-American War depends on whether the term used in the article title is viewed as a description of an event or the name of an event. If the former then I would have though that Mexican–American war would be the correct format for the article title.

What concerns me is the dismissal by some of the argument recently put forward on the MOS talk page of always ignoring an outside style in favour of an in-house style. The example given is that some professional bodies may mandate a style for the area where they are the world authority on the formation of the names to be used including the use of hyphens or dashes. If that style is followed by the majority of (non expert) reliable sources, then I think Misplaced Pages should be guided by the usage in reliable sources, and in that case Misplaced Pages guidance should be to follow the usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

One point that may be missing in the discussion is the fact that WP is in a position where it can influence the common name and and is cited when discussing the spelling of names of local interest. So if we are being looked at as a source for determining the common name, should the MoS override the other sources? I'm not sure what impact this view should have on these discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

However we choose to punctuate a title, I think we agree the same phrase should be punctuated the same way throughout the article, and in other articles. From a copyeditor's point of view, if the MoS guideline (or any guideline) says "Hale–Bopp", and nobody changes it, then that should be the end of it. If it isn't, that won't make me go through the entire library looking for different kinds of usage, each time I find a punctuation mark. It will make me ignore all of you, and find something else to do. Art LaPella (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hyphen anecdotes

Proposed tweak to first sentence of WP:UE

WP:UE is often misunderstood as use the English language appearing form (and not to consult English language usage) despite what the first sentence says. I think if it's emphasized in the examples with an explanation in conjunction, they will have much better teaching effect. I propose the following change:

Current:

The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence.

Proposed language:

The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., the non-anglicized titles, Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen are used since they predominate in English language reliable sources, but the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence are used since they predominate in English language reliable sources.

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That is fine except for me italicizing usage makes the sentence harder to read, so I would recommend against that. Apteva (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd support this, and the emphasis on "usage" is fine (and your main point), though really it should be done with {{em|usage}}. :-) I'm a bit concerned about the repetitive wording, though; the second "in English language reliable sources" can safely be dropped, with the sentence ending at "predominate". To nit-pick, the comma before Besançon isn't needed, either. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 09:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To further nit-pick, the absence of a serial comma after Søren Kierkegaard makes its use after delicatessen an inconsistency.  --My76Strat (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this change. The problem is that defining what is or is not anglicized opens up a can of worms is "hotel" an anglicized word? Is Paris an anglicized word? What about Zurich is that anglicized or taken from French and it was they who stripped the umlaut of its dots? Rhone anglicized or taken from Latin. What about Emily Brontë is that foreign or an affectation? If we keep it simple with the current wording we do not have to go down that rabbit hole, because we don't care if it is "anglicized" or foreign as we only care about usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - or something very much like it. This would bring WP:AT nearer to actual science (lexicography, linguistics) and nearer the realm of the normal editing behaviour of professional publishing. As it stands the wording fails to distinguish issue (1) the difference between exonyms and endonyms, and issue (2) the difference between high-MOS or low-MOS publishing sources. The existing wording also encourages editors to jump into a much bigger can of worms down a much deeper rabbit hole of counting sources to see whether something is mentioned in, for example, academic sources, or mass-market media. With the result that our articles lurch around depending on whether academic or mass-market mentions have the numerical majority. At the very least setting out the difference between (1) and (2) will make things less confused. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  The proposed wording (before and after the change) has nothing to do with what sources to use. -- PBS (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your opposition because it is ostensibly directed at the change, but your basis is directed at what was already present. It already said (and has for years) "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g.," and then had the list of examples, which were to illustrate that principle. The "change" only explained how the examples that followed the first sentence, and obviously were intended to be illustrative of that first sentence, did so. If you want to discuss changing the thrust here of what it already said, that would be another story. Your later criticism, that the explanatory language proposes the mechanics of looking at "reliable sources" to find English usage, that is true, but appears to be entirely separate from the first criticism. I can't understand why anyone would oppose that. Anyway, treating your criticism as to the import of the old language and the new language since there is no functional difference, I would ask that you explain better because nothing here asks anyone to try to figure out whether a usage is anglicized or not; this policy section doesn't care which it is. We care only about usage. Let's be concrete. One person says "I want to use Fubar as that appears to be English. The other person wants to use Foobhoàr because they say its the proper title in X language, or whatever. All this paragraph teaches is that while those are often opposing sides, it doesn't actually matter – use what English speakers use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have already given some examples above, but lets look at two specific ones. Is "Zurich" an anglicized German word or did English get it from French usage which had already stripped off the dots above the u? Is a military "bunker" and anglicized word or is it a foreign word? My point is that we do not have to list words that we think are foreign or anglicized as it does not make the guidance of selecting the appropriate name simpler. -- PBS (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC

That's not the point. You're opposing the examples under the auspices of the change ("I oppose this change"), when your opposition is directed at the long-preexisting examples. That's a different conversation to have.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is the point I oppose putting into the guideline what is or is not Anglicized, simply listing some examples without categorising them as one or the other is a better approach. The editor who does not know and really wants to know the difference can always read up on the issue, the guideline does not have to become a mini summary of what is or is not an Anglicized word where every example is categorized. A simple list of examples will suffice to get the point over. -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support this or very similar verbiage, with the addition of a serial comma. KillerChihuahua 13:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what to say since we're going in circles. They were the examples for the exact same thing before as they are now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would take out the word "but" in the current text. Perhaps a better example to give is Côte d'Ivoire and Ivory Coast either version is acceptable and the decision was made on a survey of reliable sources (both ways). -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Serial comma proofreading

Since the first serial occurrence on this page, "is short, natural, and recognizable", establishes positive use of the serial comma, it should be used throughout. Ironically, the very next occurrence, "Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view", fails that standard. I'm not the only wikipedian who respects the serial comma, and for us, I ask that this entire policy page be copy-edited for consistency. If wp:sofixit applies, say the word and I'm off to the races. Best, --My76Strat (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the serial comma is actually required in that case, or the meaning can be construed as "No original research and no Neutral point of view". I would say this is definitely a WP:SOFIXIT. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 12:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the use of the capital "N" in "Neutral" defines the way to parse the phrase and prevents the "no" applying. (SMcC: I sure you've had explained to you before the value of capitals in grouping words into phrases. :-) ) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You mark a good observation. My primary motive is for consistency, and I always defer to the first occurrence, as the style election; if necessary considering the history back to its creation. Of the few areas where the article creator has an ability to influence a style preference, I like to see that respected.  --My76Strat (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

COMMONSTYLE proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Superseded by an RFC (below on this talkpage)

Noetica 06:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on favorable reception of the suggestion above in the section #The_well-established_harmony_between_WP:TITLE_and_WP:MOS for a "COMMONSTYLE" section to clarify the styling of titles should be in common with styling of text, I proposed adding something like this:

==Title styling==  {{shortcut|COMMONSTYLE}}
Article titles are styled in common with article text and headings, following guidelines 
in the WP:Manual of Style, in terms of capitalization, punctuation, italics, and such.

Is that enough? Does any more need to be said? Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I think this has already been around all the houses and found favour with all but Apteva and his cohorts. I would perhaps like to see diacritics mentioned, but I fear that will be opening up another can of worms. ;-) -- Ohconfucius  05:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't say much beyond "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged," so mentioning it along with caps, etc., shouldn't be a problem. The point is the same. I don't see anything in TITLE that conflicts. Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer we be clear whether diacritics are covered, some wikijudging I've been forced into in the past has rested in part on the question of whether "stripping diacritics" can be considered a style. Because of that previous wikijudging, I'll abdicate stating a preference for whether it's explicit inclusion or exclusion, but I would prefer a clear determination. --j⚛e decker 03:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A clear determination would be nice, but given how utterly divided the community is on their use, there is absolutely no way we can backdoor one preference or another into this proposal. The community has to decide a final position on diacritics before it can be expressed here. Otherwise, the only thing you will accomplish is to open up Ohconfucius' can of worms. Resolute 03:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A determination that diacritic-stripping is a style would simply make clearer the weak status quo that there isn't a global consensus and there'd still be a lot of local consensi and debating. It would, however, rob the continuing argument that existing policy evidences a preexisting consensus to always include or always exclude diacritics, and pull some of the venom out of the most eager partisans on both sides of the issue. That's far short of the central diacritic debate.

A determination that diacritic stripping was not a style would be consistent with the neutrality already present within the MOS, and would lend additional weight to those who believe that existing policies on article titles are determinative with respect to diacritics, however, both sides have arguments of this form, so it wouldn't really set out an answer, either.

Either way, you haven't actually answered the question, but you have narrowed the breadth of the argument involved. more so in the former case. Baby steps.

Anyway, I'll stop pushing on this thread, but I did want to explain that the situation was a little more complicated than I might have first implied. Feel free to hat this as a digression if you wish. Cheers, --j⚛e decker 03:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but the "and such" is a bit nebulous. —Neotarf (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but maybe leave off all of the "in terms of ...", or we'll get wikilawyering over anything not explicitly mentioned. — kwami (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

ha! even simpler, and better! -- Ohconfucius  07:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Image captions? —Neotarf (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No need to bring that up at TITLE? Dicklyon (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think "following guidelines in the MOS" would sound better (more grammatical) as "following the guidelines of the MOS", but that's quibbling. — kwami (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, then I think we all agree so far that this version would be OK, let's take it up from here:

RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages style and naming Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Proposal to add a short section to WP:TITLE after WP:COMMONNAME, to recognize how article titles are styled in practice and to cut down on arguments about the relationship between TITLE policy and the guidelines at WP:MOS.

The proposed addition:

  Title styling (shortcut: "COMMONSTYLE")

  Article titles are styled in common with article text and headings, following guidelines in the WP:Manual of Style.

Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Endorse. The proposal attempts to clarify and recognise that titles/names are composed as much content as style that can be dissociated, and suggest that we do dissociate it when appropriate. Yes, it's true that we should also take account of what goes on in the "real-world". But other parts of the real world live under respective constraints and limitations. It would often reflect scientists' ignorance about style matters, or organisations aggrandising their "Chief Operating Officer" with caps. In WP, we have "Kesha", not "Ke$ha"; we have "A Night at the Opera" and not "A Night At The Opera" (as it appears on the album cover and plenty of times elsewhere); we have "Mexican–American War", which (as has been discussed umpteen times already here within these talk pages) would have a totally different meaning to "Mexican-American War". But the most basic limitation we have to live with every day is the standard keyboard which uses a limited set of keys. Although the keyboard cannot be compared with the full palette available to publishing houses, modern technology is bringing us closer. I believe what we must strive to narrow that gap to create a professional publication. Misplaced Pages operates at many levels – although editor A does not have the wherewithal to do a certain keyboard manipulation, there are others who can and are happy to some behind with a broom. This proposal does not detract from recognisability. It is an enabler.

-- Ohconfucius  07:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC) supplemented at 02:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

• This is transparently a loophole to ignore usage in reliable sources.... It enables editors to ignore any outside styling or naming authority, in favor of in-house style. Even in areas where the outside authorities are the only authoritative source and every source follows them. It enables MOS editors to "fix" real-world practices they personally disagree with. Because they are convinced that the naming authorities know less about English language than them and wikipedia can fix their erroneous names (literally, in a message posted today). They can use wikipedia as a soapbox to change how the common name is spelled in the real world. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

Not a loophole to bypass, nor assumption of errors in sources. Simply accepting that there are differences of style. In the same way that we ignore vanity capitalisations like "Chief Executive Officer", and dollar signs used in lieu of an 's', like for "Kesha". -- Ohconfucius  13:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC) That comes off as an confused response, Enric Naval. Facts about a topic that reliable sources provide do not mystically turn into laws of nature about punctuation or italics. You are confusing data and metadata, very badly. See separation of style and content; this is not a new or difficult concept. See also the essay WP:SSF for the logic behind the abject failure of style-equals-substance fallacies on Misplaced Pages. All serious, large-scale, multi-author/multi-editor publications, online or offline, have in-house style guides, and like ours they all examine issues of style for which there are multiple possible solutions, pick the one that works best for that publication and its audience, and stick to it. That is what manuals of style are for, no more and no less. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 18:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse. See, for example, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, and other entities who/which use unusual symbols or "punctuation" in their name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)
That is covered by COMMONNAME, reliable sources did not use his glif instead they referred to him as the artist formally known as Prince If they had commonly called him something else so should Misplaced Pages. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Opposed - I would agree that article titles should usually be styled in accordance with the MOS... but... there can be, and indeed are occasional exceptions. Article titles are determined by consensus... that consensus is formed by applying several basic principles (Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency). To help us to apply these basic principles we look to a few sub-concepts... for example: WP:COMMONNAME is a sub-concept of Recognizability. I would say the MOS (as it applies to titles) is essentially a sub-concept of Consistency. Ideally we apply all of these principles and sub-concepts at the same time... but ... As the policy states: It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus. In other words, if there is a consensus to favor Recognizability over Consistency, (ie WP:COMMONNAME over the MOS), this is absolutely OK (And of course the reverse may occur... if there is a consensus to favor the MOS over WP:COMMONNAME, that is also absolutely OK.) Which, if any, are given preference depends on the specific title in question, and can only be determined through consensus in a case by case, article level examination (it can not be mandated at a policy/guideline level). If there is disagreement and a consensus can not be reached, we widen the pool of opinion through an RFC, or take the dispute to RM. But consensus rules... and the consensus may well be (in a specific case) to ignore the MOS.

If we are to mention the MOS in this policy, we need to take all of this into account. The underlying theme of this policy is one of flexibility through consensus building... we need to fit any mention of the MOS into that underlying theme. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

If we're in agreement on usually, maybe we can get consensus around what sort of exceptions there could be. Do you have some in mind, for example where styling according to the MOS would be in conflict with recognizability? Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I would say that the most likely exceptions would be cases were WP:COMMONNAME indicates the use of a specific title ... a title that might not be in line with the MOS. But I could also see a case where Naturalness was the issue (ie following the MOS would lead to something that was not natural). No, I don't have any specific examples in mind... it's just that the key to this policy is that Titles work on consensus, are thus we must be flexible in applying and weighing which of the different provisions discussed in the policy should be favored. Each article title has different issues to deal with and consider, and the factors that led us to favor one principle over another in one article, will not be relevant when we are determining the title of a different article. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC) WP:IAR exists for a reason and is policy. WP:POLICY makes it clear that for all guidelines and policies (other than external, legal ones imposed by WP:OFFICE, like WP:COPYRIGHT, many aspects of WP:BLP, etc.) there are always exceptions. We do not need to reiterate in WP:AT that there are exceptions, since that's off-topic there and we already have pages about that. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 18:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as what WP does already anyway. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, with or without the "in terms of . . .", and without prejudice to (possibly later) adding something to take care of occasional exceptions, as mentioned by Blueboar. It seems obvious that the MoS should also apply to the title. Any special considerations regarding titles can be detailled in the MoS.--Boson (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Blueboar. As far as I can tell this has come up because a style issue discussion on the MOS talk page of which that multiple reliable sources explicitly say - continuing is the most recent section on the subject. I am not at all conformable with this statement "Reliable sources on astronomy are not reliable sources on English language usage" in that section by SMcCandlish, it seems to me to be a nanny knows best argument. As I said in the section #The well-established harmony between WP:TITLE and WP:MOS:-- What concerns me is the dismissal by some of the argument recently put forward on the MOS talk page of always ignoring an outside style in favour of an in-house style. The example given is that some professional bodies may mandate a style for the area where they are the world authority on the formation of the names to be used including the use of hyphens or dashes. If that style is followed by the majority of (non expert) reliable sources, then I think Misplaced Pages should be guided by the usage in reliable sources, and in that case Misplaced Pages guidance should be to follow the usage in reliable sources. -- If a external style is commonly used in non expert reliable sources, then it ticks at least two of the bullet points, Recognizability and Naturalness in which case Consistency (which in my opinion should only ever be applied when it does not contradict the other points) should give way. -- PBS (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

Blueboar has declined to provide any example of a case where style consistency would work against recognizability or naturalness. Do you have one in mind? E. g. one where the consensus on how to style text in the article might not make a great title? Dicklyon (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I don't know of an example, because this wording has not been in this policy so it probably has not come up. As I do not follow all of the requested moves at RM it is quite possible that this has been a problem in this area and I do not know about it. See my comment above on the "Mexican American war". Should we correct then use of the word Anglo as in Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1919 when replacing a hyphen with a ndash because clearly Anglo is incorrect it should be "British" (or in that case "Indian"), or do we follow the usage in sources? If it is not a problem then we do not need the additional wording unless it is word is such a way as Blueboar has suggested above. That this change is being proposed now is a sign that some editors at least think that the fuss that has been generated over on the MOS talk page, has some legitimacy and I see this as a move to try to ignore the usage in reliable sources in favour of an arbitrary rule. -- PBS (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC) PBS, what does this have to do with the proposal? If we decide to use hyphens in comet names, wouldn't we do it in running text also? Why would we put hyphens in the title but use dashes in running text? The only point here is that we should use the same punctuation/capitalization in the title that we do in running text. Why is this a problem? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC) "Why would we put hyphens in the title but use dashes in running text?" Yes why would we? If the authority that is responsible for naming uses a hyphen, and other reliable sources follow that lead why ought we not follow the usage in those sources? Note I am not talking about a random style issue here, but WP:Verifiability of what is defined as the correct name and and the usage (or lack of usage) in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC) PBS, I answer such concerns in my reply to KillerChihuahua, below. These are basic conceptual muddles. No one wants to set aside reliable sources. MOS itself has the greatest respect for them, but of necessity in a systematic and distinctive way. Not everyone grasps how this works intuitively; hence the need to get explicit and clear, and hence this RFC. Noetica 23:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Right, PBS, so what does that discussion—hyphens vs. dashes in comet names and other "WP:V/authority" vs. "consistent style" issues—have to do with this RFC? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Your argument, PBS, is the one that actually ends up being the "nanny knows best" case, in which astronomy journals are the nanny, and you would do blindly, reflexively just obey nanny, even when consensus on Misplaced Pages clearly indicates that nanny is being worse than unhelpful in our context. Misplaced Pages is not a specialist journal; Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia with the most general purpose and most general audience in history. See my own !vote for details on why we cannot do what specialist sources do stylistically (note that this has nothing to do with underlying facts about the topic, versus how they are presented), when they conflict with standard usage or with each other, or simply want to do things that don't make sense on Misplaced Pages. MOS bends over backwards to recommend what specialist sources want – even when complying is sometimes unfamiliar and excessively geeky for many editors – when such conflicts do not arise. Specialists do not get to have their way 100% of the time. Too bad, so sad. "In every life, a little rain must fall." WP:GETOVERIT and WP:MOVEON, please. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 18:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It would simply be ridiculous for us to style an article title differently from a mention of the same thing in the body of an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

Obviously, the body of the text would be updated to follow the new title. It should go without saying. Everyone agrees on this. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Um, no, they don't. More often than not, titles are changed to follow the text, and changes that force the opposite are frequently reversed. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 18:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Wait a second here. Are you saying that we should abolish the MOS, at least w/r/t the article title, which I thought everyone agreed governed things like hyphens vs dashes in article text (as opposed to title), in favor of applying COMMONNAME to the article text as well? That seems like the implication of "updating the body of the text to follow the new title" if the styling of the title is for some reason not subject to MOS. AgnosticAphid talk 02:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC) We do it in articles on cities and towns all the time (entitling the article with the modern name, but using any historical names in the body of the text when discussing the city or town in an historical context). Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC) But he said "style". Using "New Amsterdam" in the New York City article isn't a change of "capitalization, punctuation, italics, and such", so it isn't style. And if there's a historical name that differs only in punctuation, an unwritten historical exception applies just as well to the MoS as to WP:TITLE. All the reasons to use hyphens in "Hale–Bopp", "Mexican–American War" etc. are also reasons to change the MoS. Art LaPella (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC) OK... consider the following hypothetical... suppose we are writing an article on a rap musician who's real name is Joe Blow. During his carrier Joe has made several stylistic changes to his stage name ... starting as "J Blow", then using "JBLOW" (in all caps), then "J-BLOW" (with a dash or hyphen)... etc. We have several choices for the Article title (We might determine that the article title should be his real name "Joe Blow"... or we might decide to to go with his most recent stage name "J-BLOW" - despite the potential for a conflict with MOS over the hypen/dash issue. Or we might follow COMMONNAME and figure out which of his various stage names is most commonly used in the sources.) Whatever we chose for the title, we would use each variation in the text, as historically appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC) You're right, sort of. Of course that is an unusual case, but we would want the title styled differently than part of the article. The more significant question is, should we style the title differently just because it's the title? MOS:TM would require "J-Blow" (or in the article, perhaps "J-Blow, stylized as J-BLOW") instead of J-BLOW, but I would think we would prefer "J-Blow" to "J-BLOW" in the title for the same reason. Art LaPella (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Is it really that unusual? Arthur Rubin already cited that most notorious one of 'the artist formerly known as Prince'. -- Ohconfucius  02:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC) If it's usual, Prince (musician) isn't an example. Both the title and the article consistently call him "Prince". It calls him "Prince Rogers Nelson" once, it mentions the "Love Symbol" and shows it, and it mentions "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" and "The Artist", but uses "Prince" when simply referring to him. If styling is "capitalization, punctuation, italics, and such", it never calls him pRINCE, Prince!, or Prince. Same rule for the title as the article. Art LaPella (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC) An example that does come up is the usage of MacLean or Maclean, different people choose to case the L differently. Another example is Kim Dotcom if he chose to style himself Kim DotCom and it became the common usage in reliable sources, then should we not follow that lead? I see this as exactly the same issue name changes such as Muhammad Ali (it remains Cassius Clay until such time as the majority of reliable sources use the new name and then Misplaced Pages should follow that lead), and the transliteration of Chiang Kai-shek (we use the most common transliteration -- not necessarily that used for other transliterations from that script (Bejing -- which again is based on common usage) -- so we do not need style consistency between articles if in using that style we are deliberately ignoring usage in reliable sources. If we were to do that we would have to choose whether to change Chiang Kai-shek or Bejing so that the transliteration is consistent across articles. -- PBS (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC) MacLean (two inconsistently capitalized words in ten articles) and the hypothetical Kim DotCom would be examples of what I said was unusual, but neither is a criticism of the proposed edit. No MoS guideline provides a preference between MacLean and Maclean, or any of the other examples in the previous post. Art LaPella (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC) MacLean vs. Maclean is not a style issue, it's an underlying factuality issue (and there're easily findable reliable sources on why some prefer one and not the other, with entire families of thousands and thousands of people consistently using one spelling or the other of certainly Gaelic names like this – short version is one camp always capitalized after the patronymic, the other only does so if the base part of the anglicized name begins with the same letter in the original language. This is nothing at all like "J-Blow" vs. "J-BLOW" or "Kesha" vs. "Ke$ha", which are 100% marketing style matters, subject to MOS:TM, and WP:OFFICIALNAME which derives its style advice from MOS and MOS:TM. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 18:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Seems to be existing practice, and in theory should help avoid debates getting side tracked on the technicalities of policy vs guideline rehashing. If there are cases where consensus doesn't match the MOS, since like that would be the place to fix it as they probably should apply to section headers and the like as well. PaleAqua (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It should go without saying, but this should prevent more endless bickering. —Neotarf (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

Just for the record, you said support already before I changed the text of the proposal, so I'll take this as a confirmation that you like the change, not another vote. I agree that it will be nice to no longer have to hear the "guideline versus policy" theories, or how commonname is supposed to mean follow the style of sources. Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Right, "let's take it up from here" I took to mean a new round of comment was invited on the amended language. But it has now been more clearly formatted. —Neotarf (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – A clear and concise description of current practice. Paul Erik 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support an explicit clarification of the dovetailing roles of WP:MOS (with subpages) and WP:TITLE (with auxiliaries). These work harmoniously to settle choices in the content and styling of article titles. Quite rightly, very little in the development of WP:TITLE has addressed styling ("political" intrusions aside). Style on Misplaced Pages has always been the province of MOS. Because Misplaced Pages is developed collaboratively and consensually by volunteers, confusion is bound to arise from time to time. So yes, let's set out the complementary roles here, to match the statement at WP:MOS. Long overdue. Noetica 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Omit needless complexity. (More clearly: our current consensus on the balance between style and naming issues, reflected here, sets a clear and effective line to good effect. Let us reap the benefits of that choice by clearly communicating that consensus, and avoiding drift into more drama-generating complexity than is necessary, useful or even desirable.) --j⚛e decker 03:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - particularly logic of Joe Decker about avoiding drift to more drama-generating complexity. And I would think I am less frequent here than many if not all, per Blueboar outside buy-in would be beneficial, but I suspect non WP:AT/MOS regulars are more not less likely to support? Is there something less protracted than an RfC tag on the top of this section like a "come give quick input in 3-4 days" type tag? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was not planning on commenting, but even though my views are well known it is pointless to say that without it being recorded. As I do a lot of work with titles I would not want to have to read through 142 pages (71 Title and 71 MOS) to decide the proper title, so I would ask that if there are any important styling issues that need to be followed in deciding a title, to create a page here as a naming convention instead – not an unreasonable suggestion, and of course it needs to agree with whatever the MOS says, as it is impossible to have two pages that are supposed to be consensus but disagree. And no I am not voting because of wanting anything any particular way. I just want to Keep It Seriously Simple. Plus it seems odd to have a policy defer to a guideline instead of the other way around – guidelines are expected to have far more exceptions than policies, so adding this would not accomplish the desired result. I am willing to strike this if anyone objects to me posting this, but I would not want to see this proposal included with even a couple of editors objecting. Nor would I like to see this be an XX vs. YY battle, in which case all but one of each votes are thrown out and we have a 1:1 stalemate. We are all here for the same purpose – to create a world class encyclopedia that we can all be proud of, and there is nothing urgent in deciding this issue – like everything else it is better to get it right than to rush to get it done (If you do not have time to do it right, what makes you think you have time to do it over?). Apteva (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

I thought this user was topic banned. —Neotarf (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Luckily for the user, he was banned from discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed. So as long as there is no mention of punctuation whatsoever, he gets a free pass. -- Ohconfucius  01:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC) The ban proposal that the community consensus was in favor of also restricted it from pushing its "theory that the MOS does not apply to article titles" (the "policy defer to a guideline" idea). But the closer didn't write that into the ban notice, so yes, it gets a free pass. It is good to have its position represented here, and I trust it'll leave it at that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC) This is definitely, unmistakably a violation of his topic ban. I predicted, did I not, that it would be ineffective. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors: Per wp:FOC, discuss the issues here, and address user actions at a user-talk page or wp:ANI, not in this venue please. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose; per Blueboar and because the MoS is not policy and should not be policy. By adding this in without any modifier at all, you would effectively be promoting all of MoS to policy. We don't block people for not following the MoS, for good reason. Suggest it to them, as is befitting a guideline, but do not conflate it with the 'musts' which exist in this policy. KillerChihuahua 13:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

It seems there are conceptual misunderstandings to clear up. No one is proposing here that MOS be made policy; only that its established role as the central resource for style on Misplaced Pages be pointed out explicitly. Exactly, in fact, to counter uncertainty among those unfamiliar with the distinction between content and styling of content. Article titles are content, and as such are the core business of WP:TITLE. But like all content, they must be styled; and that is the core business of MOS, for all parts of every article on Misplaced Pages. This is how it works in all publishing, and it can hardly be otherwise. Everyone rightly insists that an article must have internal consistency, and that must include accord between the title and the remainder of the article. The reach of WP:TITLE cannot extend beyond the title. So it is neat, efficient, and optimal that MOS remain the style resource for titles, once WP:TITLE has determined their content. ArbCom has effectively ruled that way, in settling the biggest titling dispute the Project has seen. This RFC is for confirmation of that accepted arrangement. If any aspect of styling is systemically failing in any way (as matching, for example, no reliable sources), the place to address that genuine concern would be at WT:MOS (or at a MOS subpage). Simple, orderly, natural. Noetica 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC) How on earth are you coming up with the theory that this would amount to "promoting all of MoS to be policy"? There's a formal process for making policies here and this isn't it. This proposal does not actually change anything at all, it simply observes and describes actual practice: WP:AT derives, and always has derived, it's style advice from MOS. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC) The edit says: "Article titles are styled in common with article text and headings, following guidelines in the WP:Manual of Style." It even says "guidelines". But if people somehow think that really makes the MoS a policy, we could reword it to please the Wikilawyers: "The COMMONNAME process is not intended to apply to a title's style, which would conflict with the WP:Manual of Style guidelines." Art LaPella (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral - What's the big deal about dashes & hyphens in article titles? They're basically the same, except one's longer then the other. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

Not a big deal. The attempt here is partly to prevent such arguments coming up all the time, so people like you who don't care won't be bothered by them, and people who do care can find something better to do than argue about alleged conflict between different policy and guideline pages. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Whatever's decided, it's a win-win situation for me :) GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Right; this is not about dashes, it's about stopping WP:LAME festivals of bickering and whining by people who refuse to recognize that WP:AT derives it's style advice from WP:MOS, and always has (otherwise tens or hundreds of thousands of articles would have titles that contradicted their lead sections). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Titles should be determined primarily by usage in reliable sources. Only when that fails to indicate an obvious choice should we even consider looking at the MOS. Article content style questions should also follow usage in reliable sources whenever possible first, and looking at MOS only if that fails, but that's out of scope for this discussion (and talk page). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

Sorry B2C. You are among those who miss the basic categorial distinctions that we're dealing with. Titles are content that is styled. Sure, they are to be determined by reliable sources. But the way that is achieved for their style (by definition of the very term style!) differs from how it is achieved for content. Reliable sources are first of all reliable for content. All of the provisions concerning reliable sources on Misplaced Pages address content, in articles. But MOS too respects reliable sources. Of course! Its guidelines are not idiosyncratic, but a carefully and consensually developed distillation of style choices in the real world out there – with particular attention to how other major style sources do that distillation, for quality publishing in the English language. We have to get over this conceptual hurdle; and that's hard work. Let's focus better, hmmm? Noetica 00:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Right. B2C, you really, really need to absorb the logica at Separation of presentation and content and the essay WP:Specialist stle fallacy. A reliable source on underlying facts about a topic is not mystically transmogrified into a reliable source on how to write and style English in a general-purpose encyclopedia, and more than WP's MOS can dictate how to do research in an academic journal. They're utterly different, severable, unrelated concerns. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not talking about looking at any one source to decide what style to use. I'm saying that if the majority of sources uses a particular style when referring to an article topic, we should use that style in the article's title. Only when no such guidance is clear from usage in sources should we look at MOS for guidance. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC) You turn things on their head, B2C. You still have not grasped the way style and content are related, in any kind of print or online publishing. If the majority of respected sources use a certain style, that fact feeds into development of style guides (and dictionaries, etc.). And of course it feeds into the consensual development work at WT:MOS, and its subpages. It is simply unworkable to appeal to raw sources in making style decisions, bypassing the established processes. That applies in all publishing (where it is fundamental, and generally understood); and it applies on Misplaced Pages – where, however, the volunteers are likely to misunderstand. It is especially common for computer professionals to misunderstand! Sometimes their thinking may be dominated by algorithms and invented solutions, taking little account of the social context, and actual human needs. Editing professionals, on the other hand, are typically aware of the essential role of collegial development in style (and in serving actual readers' needs), informed by hard-won principles rather than masses of diverse particular usages. Concerning that interactive social dimension, I have asked this question: Where are the "reliable sources" for the untested algorithms endorsed in WP:TITLE and WP:DAB (a guideline page to which WP:TITLE explicitly defers)? Where is the evidence that they enhance the experience of readers? MOS is far more sourced, far more tested, and far more collegially developed. Let's use it as intended. Noetica 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. There will always be disagreements. This way we only have them once.—Curtis Clark (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree that this is not merely a question of styling. Titles should always be determined by reliable sources; usability and commonsense are also important. "One size fits all" does not work in the real world. The RfC on "List of Presidents"... (below) is one example of how trying to force people to slavishly follow rules can make a lot of people angry and increase edit warring rather than reduce it. Real-world usage tends to be based on what reliable sources do, and also based on commonsense and pragmatism. Real-world usage does not follow MOS. To quote what I said earlier: <Quote>

• I'd think that sometimes it's wise to be flexible and pragmatic and let COMMONSENSE trump MOS for the same reason: (1) if it doesn't matter: i.e. if the article(s) in question are very minor articles—they get few pageviews, so they don't affect the perceived quality of Misplaced Pages—then it doesn't make a lot of sense for people to be endlessly warring over them, (2) if following MOS rules (grammatical rules) would result in an article that looks messy and inconsistent to many people—a word being capitalized in some places and not in others—or disrespectful, and so would result in endless edit warring, then a little flexibility can eliminate a lot of grief, as per the List of President(s) vs. president(s) RfCs:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles of people .282.29
• Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Requested move  
• (Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#List of WP:JOBTITLES articles   <Unquote>

• I am working on templates that extend the Template:Google family and make it trivial to research real-world usage in up to 32 of the most reliable sources at a time.
• It seems to me that Britannica prefers plain ASCII URLs but non-ASCII article titles. This is probably for usability considerations: a meaningful simple-ASCII URL is easy to type. An encoded non-ASCII URL is often a meaningless jumble of characters. In Misplaced Pages's case the URL is the same as the article title for plain ASCII, otherwise it is an encoded mess.

LittleBen (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)
This has nothing to do with URLs. The rest of your points have already been addressed in the comments on others' !votes. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. When possible the style of the article title should be based on what is used by the majority of reliable sources since that is the style that is most recognizable to the average reader. The proposal could allow people to promote opinion over recognizability. A style that is less common for a name could be argued for based on the opinion that it is the "best" style based on their reading of MOS even if it goes against the style that is used in the majority of reliable sources. Debates over dictionaries, including ones that are obscure and/or old, could be an issue if reliable sources are ignored when it comes to deciding on the style of an article title. This proposal shouldn't be a policy and even Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (capitalization) is a guideline. Also why is the shortcut called COMMONSTYLE when it says nothing about using the most common style that follows the MOS? --GrandDrake (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

This is not a proper "oppose" !vote, since you misunderstand the proposal. MOS already bends over backwards, even when it is very inconvenient for editors, to recommend that we do what specialist reliable sources prefer stylistically in a certain field, "when possible" (i.e. when it does not irresolvably conflict with standard English or with different styles demanded by other specializations that would want their pet style used in the same article). This proposal would not change that even slightly. It would simply prevent WP:LAME attempts to force use of one particular fields's specialty style when it is not workable. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think that this would help make clear that there is a difference between the substance of the article title, which i think everyone agrees is governed by commonname, and the styling of the article title, which really should be governed by the MOS. Otherwise to be consistent we would have to say that the MOS does not apply to article titles in article text. But I doubt that there is consensus for such a dramatic change; it raises a lot of questions that nobody has attempted to address, for instance:

• are we going to get rid of a significant portion of the en dash examples, presumably including hale~bopp, in the MOS?
• Suppose another astronomy article discusses hale~bopp, and lets assume the common "name" of hale~bopp uses a hyphen. Is that article also supposed to use the "COMMONNAME" for the styling of hale-bopp in the article text? If not, why not, and doesn't that defeat the purpose (consistency, I think) of the MOS? If so, isn't it kind of unworkable to have to create a list of MOS exceptions for terms that have a Misplaced Pages article whose COMMONNAME uses a styling different than the MOS? moreover, I'm not sure how easy it really is to figure out what the common style even is, because the choice is often not deliberate. And also, are we going to update said list, and all of the corresponding articles, every time the common styling of the article title changes?

I think that perhaps those opposed to this proposal have not fully thought through the implications of its rejection

AgnosticAphid talk 02:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support—much saner than what we have at the moment. Tony (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see this as "much saner than what we have", but instead; as insane, in a different way. Firstly, this isn't fixing anything, and before the fix, it is customary to identify the broken areas. I am actually seeing argument for support that suggest stifling debate, before it might be heard. There seems to be an underling theme that minority dissent is disruptive. That would be a ridiculous premise, IMO. --My76Strat (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

Isn't fixing anything? Well, you just have to be aware of how chaotic and uncertain RM discussions have been over the last few years (when people have pet objections to consensual MOS recommendations), or how ArbCom has had to deal with confusion concerning style and content, or acrimony at WT:MOS and other MOS talkpages, or acrimony here at WT:TITLE, or militant efforts like those of sockpuppeteer PMAnderson. Then you'd see how this clarification is immensely useful. No one wants to stifle debate! The relevant talkpages teem with debate to improve policy and guidelines. But also, most of us are sick of ruinous partisan campaigns that waste time and energy, forcing us reluctantly to take action such as RFC/U just so that real work can be done. Noetica 05:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I submit that "this isn't fixing anything" only because it reflects what already occurs. And what is the alternative, exactly? Ambiguity, and more unnecessary fighting? Or do you support adding a sentence to the MOS that says, "the MOS doesn't apply to article titles, or article text that includes article titles"? If so, why, and how is that an improvement? AgnosticAphid talk 08:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC) If it reflects what already occurs, how can you possibly oppose it? I don't think this can even be counted as opposition, it's just sarcasm. It's standard operating procedure for our consensus-created policies and guidelines to clearly state actual practice of good, conscientious editors, not try to legislate a "better" practice. This is quite explicit at WP:POLICY. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: It is very helpful to make a clear distinction between title content and title style and using the MOS to guide title styling is a very beneficial simplification. Jojalozzo 05:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It would be helpful to spell out what we already do. However, given the amount of opposition, if the closer takes this as a vote, it looks like we will continue to style titles per the MOS anyway, and then argue incessantly about them. (Which still beats arguing over which source to style them after, and then arguing over whether the text should match the title or the MOS.) — kwami (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It gets very irritating trying to deal with move requests in which editors argue that articles need to be moved to titles such as The Beginning Of The End (made-up example) "because it's the official title printed on the album". Deor (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)
Well, if the MOS said to title these kinds of works using the capitalization of the publisher, then this RFC would endorse such an argument. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support—Much of the opposition here appears to be opposition to something else: if we decide, for example, to use hyphens in comet names because the IAU says to, then we should do it in titles and in article text. If we decide to use dashes because we use dashes when it means and (see WP:NDASH), then we ought to do it in titles and in article text. I can't fathom any reason why we'd want to deliberately do it one way in titles and another way in running text. My only reason for opposing this would be that it all feels to obvious to even mention it in the policy. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The MOS shouldn't be a policy for titles and just a guideline for article text. If there are parts of the MOS that should be elevated into Official Policies, then do so, and then make those parts policies that apply to the title and the body of the article. Guy Harris (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

Nothing here makes MOS into "policy"; it just sets out explicitly what has always been the case (as others say above). There is no law of nature that everything to do with article titles is policy. The status of this page as policy is just something the community decided, rather narrowly I think, a while back. TITLE and MOS are in harmony. Noetica 09:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Article titles says, at the top, "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style says "This guideline is a part of the English Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Role seems to indicate that "policies", such as what's specified in Misplaced Pages:Article titles, are stronger than "guidelines", such as what's specified in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style . Guy Harris (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC) And your point would be...? WP:AT has always deferred to WP:MOS on style matters. That doesn't somehow make MOS a policy, and neither would this; it would just stop incredibly WP:LAME, confused, POV-pushing, tendentious, perennial squabble about punctuation and other style trivia, that have been and continue to be genuinely disruptive noise. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC) As long as it doesn't also empower people to force MOS-inspired title changes, even though the pre-change title might be one of the "exceptions" to the MOS, on the grounds that "this is POLICY, not just a mere guideline". Why does "Article titles are styled in common with article text and headings.", without mentioning the MOS, not suffice? If an article's text and headings don't follow the MOS, presumably that's either a bug and somebody should go in and fix the article, or it's a feature and the article and its title should be left alone. (And why does Misplaced Pages draw distinctions between "policies" and "guidelines" anyway, if "the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays on Misplaced Pages is obscure"? If "all policies need to be applied with common sense", how is "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." not also true of policies?) Guy Harris (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:POLICY WP:AT is a policy, the MOSes are guidelines. This would turn all the guidelines into defacto policies, making a hash of WP:POLICY. This change is much greater than it appears since it effectively promotes every MOS article title guideline to policy status, and clearly there's been too much controversy on the issue to promote them en-masse. You need to go through every single MOS guideline individually for promotion to policy status.-- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as a piece of obvious common sense. This idea that there is some magic distinction that needs to be preserved between "guidelines" and "policies" is stupid. They all just contain things that our collective mind has decided constitute good advice. They can all be ignored when there's an overriding reason to do something differently, otherwise they can be followed so as to avoid inconsistencies and unnecessary arguments over nothing. Victor Yus (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. MOS presently explicitly defers to the "Article title" policy, and presumably was written with this deference in mind. If the editors of the MOS knew it was going to be in control of the style of Misplaced Pages article titles, they might have written it differently. Also, the distinction between content and styling is not clear-cut and it is inadvisable to put them in different guidelines or policies. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)
Of course the distinction between content and styling is clear-cut. Very. Always has been. Things like MOS:TM could not exist otherwise. And nothing said at WP:Manual of Style#Article titles conflicts with this proposal. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The wording is far too vague for what appears to be the single use case, namely that we're the only place on the entire bleeding Internet that has any interest in the distinction between hyphens and en-dashes. That should be addressed specifically, rather than in a generic statement that could be (mis)applied to entirely different discussions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

But no, it is certainly not just about hyphens and en dashes. That was settled in 2011, under ArbCom supervision. It applies to capitalisation and all sorts of styling in article titles. Hence the simple, inclusive wording. TW, don't you recognise the consensus achieved in 2011 for dashes? If you don't like it, can't you nevertheless accept that it is a consensus among your peers on Misplaced Pages? Antipathy to one or other particular consensual guideline is no reason to dismiss MOS. We all live with things on Misplaced Pages that we consider less than perfect, in the interest of the encyclopedia and its readers. Noetica 10:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I do more than my fair share of dash-enforcement, and have come to believe that consistent typography is of benefit to the project. That does not prevent me from expressing the fairly commonly-held sentiment that we're the only people on the planet who care about dashes on Web pages. If there is a broader use case here (outside of specific, cherry-picked examples like Ke$ha that don't really need specifically discussed in the MoS) then that should be made clearer. I disagree with wording which is, without context, meaningless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC) See Misplaced Pages talk:Specialist style fallacy for various other cases, themselves just the tip of the irrational "my style way or the highway" iceberg. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this wording: I'm neutral on the topic, but the words "in common with" fudge it; it would be clearer if they were "in the same way as". --Stfg (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  Oppose: judging from many of the comments here, the proposal appears designed to put some discussions to rest, and it has clear meaning to those involved in the discussions. I haven't been involved in them, and it communicates nothing to me about how I should style a title or about anything else. Guidelines need to be transparent, not just to those in the know. --Stfg (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

We can all quibble over wording. I could do the same, in this present case. But the meaning is in fact accurately given. "In common with" is more inclusive than "in the same way as". For one thing, it adds something about the strength of the application, not just its manner. Noetica 10:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC) It would possibly be more relevant and civil not to dimiss a constructive comment as quibbling. Clear wording reduces opportunities for wikilawyering. I think "X styled in common with Y" merely says that both are styled, and nothing about the relationship between styles. Still opposing. --Stfg (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Forgive me, Stfg: I cannot think that a subtle criticism of that sort is constructive, if you use it to warrant an "oppose" (despite being neutral on the content). You might instead have brought it up for discussion, in the subsection below. Now, let's look at what you seem to propose as an alternative: Article titles are styled in the same way as article text and headings, following guidelines in the WP:Manual of Style. That can be misread by wikilawyers in a way that the present wording cannot be misread. There are some differences in the "way" styling of titles and other parts of an article is managed. Titles have a capital letter at the start, for example; and are big and bold. You think that's an invented quibble, perhaps? But all sorts of misreadings have arisen that we have no way of predicting. Just look at how people habitually misunderstand and therefore misapply some of the provisions in WP:TITLE, too. In the end, I agree: the drafting is important; but not all-important, when we are discussing the intent and it is actually very clear. Noetica 12:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you, Noetica. Of course, a proposal doesn't have to be a support to be constructive. No, I didn't think your point was an "invented quibble" at all; it nicely dispenses with my suugested rewording. I now think I see why some editors are saying it solves an issue that concerns them, while others are calling it meaningless. As a result, I have changed my vote as indicated. --Stfg (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, in the current context: It seems obvious that it's right that when the words used for the title of the article are repeated in the text with the same meaning then they should be styled in the same way. However, I can't support the proposal at present for two reasons.

1. There's no precise explanation of what is meant by "style". It's very difficult to word this precisely (e.g. the word "glyph" which some people have used in connection with styles is used at Glyph in a way which means that "å" is two glyphs, whereas other sources would call this one glyph). Do all of the following differ only in style? "Chloe", "chloe", "Chloë", "Chloe", "Chloe" (I would say that they do, except for the case when the italics are used for emphasis. However, in a language which uses diacritics as part of its spelling system, the difference between "e" and "ë" isn't just a style choice.) Is the choice of straight or curved forms of the single quote mark only a style choice? (I would say that it is.) Is the choice of single or double quote mark a style choice? (I would say not.) Is the choice between hyphen and en-dash only a style choice? (I would have said that it is, but since the MOS attaches significant semantic import to the difference, I'm now not sure that within Misplaced Pages it is only a style choice.) Without a precise definition, all the old debates will continue but with a new twist, e.g. with one side saying that diacritics or hyphens vs. en-dashes are just a style issue and the other saying that they are not.
2. The reason for this RfC taking place now The timing of this RfC makes it seem to be aimed at gaining leverage for the current MOS position on hyphens vs. en-dashes. If it were, or can be made into, a neutral attempt to clarify guidance to ensure consistency in appearance between the title of an article and the other parts of the article, then I (and I'm sure others) would be happier to support it.

Peter coxhead (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

There is a lot that deserves comment there Peter. Let me just address the second point. I am astonished when intelligent people assume that other equally intelligent people are obsessed with hyphens and en dashes, simply because they seek to protect the consensually derived guidelines about them. I assure you: I, at least, am mortally weary of the whole topic. But there is a consensus, and I would like to see it observed. Till it changes, if it ever does. This RFC is long overdue for broader reasons. There are numerous points of misunderstanding revealed in RMs especially. As I have said above, because Misplaced Pages is built by volunteers, it is inevitable that misunderstandings about style and the role of style manuals will arise. Many editors have never seen one before, or heard of the genre. Why an RFC now? It's the season! People have time to address longstanding issues, as we have seen at WT:MOS also right now. (Time? How I wish I had time, actually.) Noetica 12:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I apologize for my careless wording above, which I have now amended. I certainly did not wish to impugn your motives. I do continue to think my point 1 is vital. Maximum precision in wording in the MOS is crucial (total precision is impossible in natural language, as we both know well). It will never prevent differences of opinion surfacing, but can help to sharpen the debate and hence build consensus. Lack of clarity in the MOS wording re hyphens and en-dashes, which we have discussed elsewhere, and lack of clarity as to what "style" means in the context of the MOS, create ill-focussed debates and hence limit our ability to achieve consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC) And perpetuating the confusion and patently false assumption of some editors that WP:AT derives its style advice exclusively from external sources instead of from MOS (which balances what external reliable and often specialist sources prefer with what MOS needs, deferring to specialist sources in virtually all cases where it is practical to do so) helps in what way? In no way at all, of course. But as is shown by arguments over a range of topics, not just hyphens, part of the problem is deciding what exactly is "styling" and what is "content"; what should be sourced from style guides and the MOS and what from other reliable sources. Consider the discussions between those who think an album title's odd capitalization should be kept and those who think that it can be altered. The separation between content and style is not clear cut; it lies at the heart of many arguments. I believe that clarifying what the MOS considers "mere style" is a prerequisite. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - we should also take into consideration how the best sources for a particular article use the title - if all or most of the reliable sources are using one usage, well, then we don't need to buck the trend. Why should an article title be an exception to our general rule to use what reliable sources use? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)
See my !vote immediately below for why, in detail. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 18:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: This is a clear case of proper policy/guideline instruction, since it reflects actual practice rather than trying to legislate it. If it were not already actual practice, tens if not hundreds of thousands of articles would have titles that did not agree with their reliably sourced lead sections, but we do not have that sort of chaos; QED. The idea that WP:AT does not derive its style advice from WP:MOS is absurd and sorely confused. (See WP:SSF for the source of that confusion; the short version is that reliable sources on underlying facts about an article topic, such as what its name is and how that is spelled, are not magically also reliable sources on how to style prose in a general purpose encyclopedia, as a matter of basic logic, but some editors refuse to accept this simple fact). Insistence on bucking MOS on the basis of a pet specialist style fallacy is one of the leading causes of WP:LAME disputes across Misplaced Pages. WP:AT needs to be clarified, in this proposed way, which does not actually change WP standard operating procedure, but observe and describe it, to stave off more of this sort of perennial and usually mind-numbingly tendentious and disruptive nonsense.

  Many "oppose" commentators here are confusing relying on a reliable source for facts about the name of a topic, with blindly aping some aspect of the style in which such a sour choses to present those facts. An astronomy journal, history text book or model railroad enthusiast magazine is emphatically not a reliable source on how to format text for the most general-purpose publication in human history. We have our own in-house style guide for several reasons. Three others are that offline style rules are not always ideal for online media; specialist sources often use their own in-house style quirks familiar only to specialists and which directly conflict with normal English usage, so using them here distracts, confuses, even upsets our readers for no defensible reason; and specialist sources in different specialties frequently contradict each other, guaranteeing that devotees of one non-standard style quirk vs. the other, that no one else could possibly care about, will editwar about it until the cows come home.

  PS: MOS already takes into account what reliable sources prefer stylistically, and advises following them when this is practical. Most of the "oppose" !votes above are entirely based on the straw man and red herring argument that this is not the case; those that didn't raise some other objection are basically logically invalid opposes. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 18:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support This reflects standard practice, and encourages people to discuss style issues at MOS rather than here. Tdslk (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Given the immense intellectual scope of Misplaced Pages, there is no common level of "general purpose" applicable for all articles. It is more important that a given Misplaced Pages article be consistent with the more detailed literature that supports it (into which the article should help guide them), than that we enforce an artificial and invented consistency across Misplaced Pages's breadth. This proposal, by elevating the MOS to policy by reference, favors the latter over the former, and I cannot agree with it. Choess (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as implicit elevation of MOS guidelines to policy level to override common-name: As noted by several editors above, the wp:TITLE policy text should not empower a guideline to outweigh, or override, the simple concept to use the wp:COMMONNAME in the preponderance of wp:RS reliable sources (regardless of shifting fashions in style guidelines). While intensely studying these issues for the past month, I quickly found evidence that common-names are difficult to "stylize" to also match the world's whims of common naming. In particular, I was surprised to learn that replacement of hyphens with en dashes, in some professional journals, is very rare, and is not always a journal's "in-house style" but rather the choice of some authors who might even mix, hyphen-for-dash usage, in the same article (over 94% of Google Scholar 1,000 matching documents do not put dash in the 1887 "Michelson-Morley experiment"). Also, hyphens are a matter of precise "spelling" (not merely style), and the phrase "spelled with hyphens" (search Google Books) can be found in sources spanning over 100 years; hence, some titles are expressly spelled with hyphens not dashes (as evidenced by term "hyphenated Americans"). Also, various styles in common-name titles have changed over the centuries, and so where a topic was commonly named 100 years ago, then that title might be very different than the contemporary fashion of trendy styles in the recent decade, while most sources still use the old-named title. For example, some hyphen usage has been changed recently, in just the past 100 years, as dropped in words such as "co-operation" (now "cooperation") or "teen-age" (now "teenage"). Also, diaresis has been reduced, as in "zoölogy" (now "zoology") or "naïve" (to "naive"), but "coöperative" has led to "co-op" and so each title should be analyzed as simply the common name used in the preponderance of sources, with no prejudgment of styles to override the spelling. Hence, any suggestion to defer title spelling to style trends is likely to generate unusual titles which will reduce wp:Accessibility for many users, who would expect to see the common-name title, not an unusually re-styled name. Also, there is the danger of "hypercorrection" to force peculiar names, such as "co-op" hypercorrected as style "co—op". Clearly, oppose attempt to have styles which override common spelling. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(Discussion of preceding contribution)

Articles like Michelson–Morley experiment are punctuated the same way in the title as in the article. We should all be able to agree with that, whether we like the dash or not. Same with all the other issues, like "teen-age" and "co-op"; the title matches the text, and that's all there is to it. Therefore, the title is styled the same way as the text, which is covered by the Manual of Style. And now we need to make that explicit to stop all the Wikilawyering. Art LaPella (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Further comments and discussion

• Comment - I note that the majority of those who have opined (so far) are all active "regular" editors at WP:MOS (in fact, I may be the only one who isn't). Please note that there is nothing wrong with MOS regulars being involved on this page or in this discussion (indeed, a proposal like this should have a lot of input from MOS regulars)... but... I think we also need to hear from more editors who are not MOS regulars. As things stand right now, an analysis of who has responded could be subject to accusations of vote-stacking. I don't think that is actually the case, but I could easily see someone looking at who is participating and drawing that conclusion. If we bring in more people - people who are not MOS regulars - we can avoid that. Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a false dichotomy. It's not that there really is a species called MOS editors, and another called TITLE editors. A divisive prejudgement, perhaps. Me? I declare my interest in both areas, at the top of my talkpage. Many editing professionals might make such a declaration; and they are the most acutely aware of the interleaved separateness of content and style. They typically work with both, of necessity. This is the talkpage for WP:TITLE, so we can expect that those watchlisting the page will turn up and express an opinion. Why would they not support the proposal to clarify what is in fact inevitable? Anyway, Enric Naval is a voluminous commentator at WT:MOS, and opposes here (predictably!). Can't see the problem. No rush. The more participation, the better. As always. Noetica 04:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've advised Blueboar to go ahead and add an RfC tag in response to his call for participation at VPP. I agree more eyes on the topic will be good, though one also needs to keep in mind that the community at VPP expressed a lot of apathy and impatience for these topics, so we may not get a bunch. Myself, I'm both an MOS and TITLE regular, with not so much as a 2X difference in edits in spite of an earlier start at MOS. I soon realized how they work together, and how attempts to keep them in conflict were used as a sort of workaround for MOS disagreements. I think we're on the verge of putting that era behind us. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, am certainly not a "MOS regular". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I find the question being so simple versus the opinions being so strong to suggest there is more to this than the RfC question reveals. It makes me wonder " what is really being asked?". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That may be because there are some editors who believe in the absolute sanctity of reliable sources or want the opportunity to argue through cherry-picking of their pet reliable source to get the result they want. -- Ohconfucius  08:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Article titles are styled in common with article text and headings, following guidelines in the WP:Manual of Style." Lots of stuff gets added all over the MOS with little scrutiny that could affect article titles. This policy page like the content policy pages has the huge advantage that may edtors see and discuss any proposed changes. If this proposed wording is placed on this page without the sort of qualifications such as Blueboar suggested then at future RMs we could have the situation where someone says it does not matter what the reliable sources call the thing this is a matter of style and the MOS says XYZ on this issue and AT policy states we should follow the MOS. If this statement was to be qualified for example

Providing the other criteria as laid out in this policy and its naming conventions are met, article titles are styled in common with article text and headings, following guidelines in the WP:Manual of Style

Then it would be acceptable to me.-- PBS (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

PBS, such a re-writing just confuses the core issue here. It assumes conflict, when there is none. On a rational reading of TITLE and MOS, the provisions of both are to be met as well as possible; and the two kinds of provision are different. TITLE is about content; MOS is about style. It really is simple! As I have explained before, if there is a problem with MOS seeming to be way of tune with "reliable sources" (other major style guides, dictionaries, best-practice publishing in areas of concern), then that is certainly never intended. It is serious, and must be addressed – as a styling problem, at WT:MOS or a subpage.
You write: "Lots of stuff gets added all over the MOS with little scrutiny that could affect article titles." But that is very far from the truth, at least at the regulating page for all of MOS, which is WP:MOS. It has 1506 watchers to see to that (WP:TITLE has only 608); and it had 11782 pageviews in the last 90 days (WP:TITLE had only 2304: almost all accounted for by a spike of interest since Christmas!). Now, what exactly are the "reliable sources" applied in developing this policy page, WP:TITLE? I'm yet to see one. Here, though, is my partial list of immediate reliable sources for MOS development. (Count them! That resource is linked at the top of WT:MOS, and used.) Have you checked the level of scrutiny at WT:MOS recently, applied to every jot and tittle that goes in? I personally, and many others who haunt that page, revert and call for detailed discussion if anything is added with "little scrutiny". Don't believe the myths. Compare, once again, some of the untested and unsourced algorithms we find here at WP:TITLE. Reliable sources for those, please? Evidence that they work, to help readers? Nonetheless, we all accept the role of this page. And most of us, apart from a few who struggle with the very notion of style, accept the natural and perfectly straightforward role of MOS. And it has been endorsed by ArbCom, as settling style for article titles.
Noetica 09:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is no conflict then the additional wording can not hurt, and it addresses some of the concerns raised by several editors. If it helps to build a consensus why do you object to such compromise wording? -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I object because it is founded on the assumption that there can be clashes between TITLE and MOS, which is directly counter to the proposal as currently worded. The proposal arose out of a discussion of the harmony of the two, which is due to their serving different purposes and having quite different relations with "reliable sources". All explained above. Your wording perpetuates a confusion. No doubt it will therefore attract some interest from those who have not entirely freed themselves of that confusion. ☺ Noetica 12:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think some people treat the MOS way too seriously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you indeed? Thanks for sharing. I should reciprocate: I'd like an hour on the holodeck with Seven of Nine. Find us a bigger, more systematic, more detailed, more closely examined and nuanced manual of style for web use; and then, please report it here for us to marvel at. Noetica 09:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the centralised control, and the complexity, and the arbitrariness of the details of the MOS suite that bothers me, and I don't think it should be elevated to pseudo policy. I think it should be no more than guidance, and to some extent, the encyclopaedia should be allowed to develop more freely than a policy MOS allows. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand, in general terms. The complexity and the arbitrariness of the details at WP:TITLE give me the creeps. But we have to live with those, and we do. I have shown above that WP:MOS is far more considered and examined. In fact it is not arbitrary in any way (though I admit that some less-examined subpages need attention). Complex? So is the world that Misplaced Pages's four million articles grapple with; and so is English. MOS is not the problem; it is a pretty good attempt at a solution, and one with a great deal of consensus behind it. (I am still waiting for you to point us to a better manual of style, for the web or for collaborative editing.) MOS is more sourced and consensual than WP:TITLE, as I argue in detail above. You might like to address that argument, yes? And like it or not, in its traditional role as a manual of style, MOS must cover all parts of an article. When that role is respected, the results are just fine. Compare the misapplication of WP:TITLE to yield such monstrosities as the title "Big". (That article is about a film. Who knew?) ☺ Noetica 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Noetica you wrote "But that is very far from the truth, at least at the regulating page for all of MOS, which is WP:MOS." The MOS is not just WP:MOS it is all the sub-pages as well (if it is not then amend you preferred the proposal to say that it only applies to the central MOS page). For an example of conflict in wording look at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Proper names it took an awfully big effort to get a change to that page to include "Main page: MOS:FOREIGN" and the top of the "Diacritics" section, and there are still editors who object to harmonising the wording of that section with the wording of MOS:FOREIGN. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So let's improve those subpages of MOS. Always desirable. And yes, it's hard work to develop MOS. (Tell me about it!) That is no argument against recognising the natural roles of TITLE and MOS. As things stand now, there are lapses from perfection everywhere; but the demarcation is already in place. Progress can be more efficient when everyone has a clearer view of this demarcation of style and content.

Speaking of problems in the development of auxiliary pages, please address the one Smokey and I discuss below, with TITLE deferring to a poorly expressed guideline (developed with no wide community discussion, and with reference to no "reliable sources"). It continues to result in absurd content decisions for titles in RM discussions.

Good to get the inevitable problems into a priority list, for action.

Noetica 21:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Big" is a poor title. I think the problem is with the looseness of the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is neither part of WP:TITLE nor WP:MOS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Big" is indeed a worse-than-useless title, Smokey. And the confusing provision called WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has no reliable sources in its development and enormous power over the minds of RM commenters, and RM closers. Yes, it is part of a guideline: a guideline deferred to by WP:TITLE, twice. Once under Precision, and once under Disambiguation (see WP:AT#Precision and disambiguation).

See the inconsistency in your own position about policies and guidelines, now? I note that you do not respond to my detailed points above, concerning the relative care taken in developing TITLE and MOS (and their care with "reliable sources"). But please, do answer my claim that you have been inconsistent here. Specifically, you endorse style domination by a policy page that systematically defers to a guideline that you admit is flawed and causing problems. ☺

Noetica 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Noetica. I don't see how the proposed change will fix the problem of "Big". I suggest this instead.

What I hear being clearly described is a problem with multiple factors. I tend to agree with your perspective, but am not persuaded that specific solutions are the way to go. Instead, multiple things need fixing. I see parts of WP:TITLE that have dubious merit at the level of {{policy}}. WP:AT#Precision and disambiguation, for example, should be at the level of guideline, not policy.

Where you see inconsistency, I see myself struggling to keep my head above water. My comment of 08:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC) stands, and User:Ohconfucius's answer I find less than helpful. You've posted multiple advertisement for this discussion, and so I've visited, but I'm afraid that the bckground is not well introduced. It's no wonder that someone says that most commenters are MOS regulars. This RfC is too difficult to penetrate for outsiders. Is it about dashes and diacritics, or puctuation and capitalisation, or relative policy supremacy of certain pages, or service to the non-policy-wonk editor, or what? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Smokey:

1. You have missed my point. It was this: policy at WP:TITLE defers to a guideline at WP:DAB, with dreadful results from RMs, such as Big. For a problem in relations between policy and guidelines, look no further! But there is no comparable problem in relations between WP:TITLE and WP:MOS, except that some people are confused about their harmonious co-existence. O, and a small minority stir up discontent and disharmony as a means of furthering their campaign against certain consensual style choices that have been settled in open discussion at WT:MOS.
2. Please do not make undiscussed changes at WP:DAB. Use the talkpage.
3. The wording of the proposal is transparent and simple. There is no hidden agenda. Really, what could it be? Yes, MOS regulars come here to post; and if I may speak for them, we always want as much community participation as can be achieved at RFCs.
4. The particular concerns you mention are just that: a few particular concerns. But the RFC is general, and on the face of it hard to fault – for anyone clear about the difference between style and content, and how different Misplaced Pages pages address those different dimensions. Details can be dealt with later, once the overall system, and mechanisms and forums for dealing with them, are clear to all. Though the simple addition proposed in this RFC.

Noetica 00:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

1. If you think I missed your point, I think you’ve missed mine. I think many of your points are correct, but are not solved by your preferred actions. There is an abundance of problems with page titles and WP:RM, even ignoring dashes, diacritics, punctuation and capitalisation. There are problems in the details at the bottom, such as with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. These problems should be fixed directly, not by word smithing the higher level policy summaries of low level guidance and definition.
2. Please do not tell me or anyone else to not edit a page. Please see Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". You are showing signs of tendency to page ownership.
3. The proposed wording elevates the MOS guidelines (collectively?) to equal standing with WP:TITLE. The possible implications of that are huge. The apparently simplicity of the change is therefore misleading. Without understanding every nuance of MOS pages, I cannot support anything stronger than PBS’s text. No, it is not acceptable to deal with the details later.
4. I think you are attempting to solve many problems from a top-down approach. To do this, you either need complete wisdom or complete authority. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bringing up old arguments like "primary topic" has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is not helpful. —Neotarf (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is, if inadequacy of of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is given as a supporting reason for this policy change. The logical response is then if the policy change decision is dependant on changes elsewhere, then the policy change should be held off subject to changes elsewhere. For elsewhere, see Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#The_.22Primary_Topic.22. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, "primary topic" is about the substance of the title, about choosing the wording or content, not the "style", which is basically format, or "conventions with respect to spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and typographic arrangement and display followed in writing or printing". The subject of primary topic is about "content"; bringing it up here can only muddy the waters and re-open old wars. Please drop this line and go back to discussing the "format" issues of WP:TITLE. —Neotarf (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Smokey:

1. You keep missing that the points about PRIMARYTOPIC only show how the present policy page defers to a guideline, and with disruptive consequences. Yet where there is no such difficulty, and no deference under consideration, you resist a simple measure to make that complementarity and harmony clear to all. That is, like it or not, a top-level recognition of a top-level truth. Details come later.
2. I will tell you not to edit a crucial guideline page that is deferred in policy. I will ask you, as ArbCom has asked people in a case relevant to this policy page, to discuss toward consensus first.
3. This is false: "The proposed wording elevates the MOS guidelines (collectively?) to equal standing with WP:TITLE." The proposed wording does no such thing. It recognises, for all to see, a plain and inevitable fact of life about content and style. And about the traditional roles of WT:TITLE and WP:MOS.
4. This is partially true: "I think you are attempting to solve many problems from a top-down approach." Sure! It's a high-level confusion that several people here are attempting to address. This is false: "To do this, you either need complete wisdom or complete authority." No, we collectively need respectful dialogue and sustained attention to all relevant arguments. That's how Misplaced Pages works. Let's see how it will manage on this occasion. ♥

For your answer to Neotarf, note: No. No one is doing that. Noetica 01:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Noetica,

(1) So are you saying that having WP:TITLE defering to a guideline is bad? But “Article titles are styled in common with article text and headings, following guidelines in the WP:Manual of Style.” explicitly defers styling to MOS as a matter of policy. This can be read as say that styling MUST (policy level MUST) be done per MOS, exceeding the emphasis beyond the guideline tag.

(2) The edit was an improvement, and there was no similar editing in the recent history, nor related discussion on the talk page. There is no ArbCom notice at Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation, and even if there were, ArbCom have no right to impose blanket authorisation of soft protection to policy pages, and if they did we must reject it. ArbCom do not make policy. I made a bold edit. You reverted. I’m discussing. I hold that if you do not engage substantively at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#The_.22Primary_Topic.22 then you have no right to revert again.

(3) “Article titles are styled in common with article text and headings, following guidelines in the WP:Manual of Style”. The unqualified word “are” effectively states with the force of policy how article titles are styled. It means, unambiguously, that styling not following the MOS is in violation of policy. Policy needs to be written more carefully than that. Policy should very rarely dare to assert statements of fact about reality.

(4) Good luck. I’d prefer to work from the bottom (eg. PRIMARYTOPIC wording) up.

Thank you for reformating my posts for clarity. Unfortunately, I don't like the hidden discussions occurring in the voting section. I think the !voting is premature, and that the RfC should be closed in favour of a proposal reflecting the ongoing discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support PBS's version and oppose the version posed by the RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• By this policy, why would I be wrong for changing every occurrence of Clinton, to Bill Clinton, where this encourages common adherence in Title and text. (I don't think the "title" is used as the "text" form at all within the entire lead!) Don't assume a semblance of common-sense either; or there would be less notion to move the wp:mos function into a policy, in the first place. MOS:TITLE states "Use common sense in applying it", whereas WP:TITLE does not (that's not a mistake). It's much harder to change a policy, to effect positive change, than a well organized discussion. BTW, I am pleased that this discussion seems sincere on both sides, and well structured. --My76Strat (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone put a comma after either one, what page of WP:MOS calls for it; this doesn't make any sense. Do people think a style guide is about formatting commas into the ends of titles. —Neotarf (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The title Bill Clinton is chosen for recognizability and other criteria. The MOS says to capitalize both words of it. It would be wrong to have Bill Clinton in the article and Bill clinton as the title. That's all we're saying. Similarly, since Michelson–Morley experiment is styled with en dash per MOS:DASH, we use the en dash in the title Michelson–Morley experiment; this is not new, of course, as it has long been recognized as appropriate in titles, at WP:TITLE#Special characters. The fact that most sources do not use a style like ours has not generally been seen as an issue on such things, except by small minority; the big dash powwow confirmed a very strong consensus on this, adopting the styling suggested by a variety of good style guides, yet some want to keep arguing. This particular case, Michelson–Morley experiment, is not even one that Apteva carried on his campaign against, since he focused on a theory of a difference based on "proper names". But a few editors, motivated apparently mostly by not liking en dashes, want to continue to push the radical position that TITLE and MOS are in conflict, and that the COMMONNAME strategy for achieving the recognizability criterion somehow implies that consistent styling of titles makes them less recognizable (though they have failed to answer my requests for an example of any article where that would be an issue). Dicklyon (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If the wording could be made to express clearly and generally what you illustrate so well at the beginning of the above ("The title Bill Clinton is chosen ... we use the en dash in the title Michelson–Morley experiment"), then I would have an easy support. Isn't there a better way to capture that intent? --Stfg (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm glad PBS proposed what he thinks would help (though it's not quite a version I can support), and I'd like to see others make proposal along the lines you've suggested, though address some of the objections and move us toward a consensus version. Would you like to draft one? Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been struggling with it. Noetica's refutation of my first attempt was valid, but in it he points out that there are aspects of title style that do differ from MOS, and I'm currently not seeing how to capture that in a general way without weaselling the whole idea away. Do you see what I mean? Can anyone help with that? --Stfg (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Stfg, I don't mean to be mean, but you miss my meaning. This is wildly incorrect: "he points out that there are aspects of title style that do differ from MOS". No! MOS devotes a whole section to styling of article titles. There are no internal inconsistencies in MOS about titles as opposed to any other parts of articles; nor external inconsistencies with WP:TITLE. Please take more care! We who do a lot of MOS development are meticulous in these matters. Noetica 23:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Noetica, I don't in the least imagine you mean to be mean. If you'd try to avoid personalizing it with comments about quibbles and "try to be more careful" (which is an oblique ad hominem actually, but don't worry about it right now), then all our lives would be easier. You're referring to WP:MoS#Article titles, yes? But that just refers back here, pretty much (but see below). When I alleged that you were pointing out that "there are aspects of title style that do differ from MOS", I should perhaps have quoted you more fully -- your words were, "There are some differences in the "way" styling of titles and other parts of an article is managed. Titles have a capital letter at the start, for example; and are big and bold." (my italics). So what we have is WP:MoS#Article titles pointing this policy, and this policy proposed to point back to other parts of MOS -- which are not specifically identified in the proposal, although you advising that this does not encompass all aspects of MOS. Do you see my problem now?

However, WP:MoS#Article titles finshes with "MoS applies to all parts of an article, including the title. See especially punctuation, below. (The policy page Misplaced Pages:Article titles does not determine punctuation.)" (I have just converted what is a local link there into a full link here, with no other change.) Does this not say exactly what you are trying to say, or am I still missing something? If it does, why not just use the above text? I find it a lot clearer than either the RfC or PBS's version above. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, instead of saying "just use the above text", I should have relocalized it for the present page. I suggest: "The Manual of Style applies to all parts of an article, including the title. See especially its punctuation section. (This policy page on Article titles does not determine punctuation.)" Or suchlike. --Stfg (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Stfg, I did not want to personalise anything; but you confuse the situation and incidentally affront me when you misrepresent what I have very carefully laid out, through your own imprecision. Avoid imprecision (once again!). That is what makes life simpler and easier in dialogue, as in policy and guidelines. The cross-referencing of provisions in TITLE and MOS? Yes, there it is. Evidence that the two are in perfect accord. For convenience in guiding editors, material is replicated. No problem.

Now this: "Does this not say exactly what you are trying to say, or am I still missing something?" No trying about it! I am saying that, and it is an established fact: TITLE and MOS have always had different roles. What you are missing is that it needs to be mirrored at this page. Obviously – because some editors seem not to have understood.

Noetica 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately some of this does come across as personalizing; in particular, over-use of the pronoun "you" can sound particularly accusatory; also, care must be taken in the use of the imperative (which also contains an unspoken "you") in order not to appear uncollegial. Rewording someone's statement does seem to me a particularly valuable way of confirming that it has been understood, and encouraging further dialogue and clarification. —Neotarf (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If the proposal is passed, does this mean an article's content must be exactly the same as its title? GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what must means here; it's about guidelines. There will be many things in the text that don't match the title, like alternative names and descriptions, some of which might have been acceptable alternate titles; these too are normally styled according to guidelines in the MOS. In some articles, the title does not even appear in the article (e.g. some of the "List of ..." articles). The point is really that there is not a separate, independent, or conflicting set of style conventions to use in titles from the ones we use in text; and I included headers because they embody the capitalization rules the same as for titles. Do you have exceptions or potential conflicts in mind? If conflicts arise, e.g. between MOS and guidelines or conventions of wikiprojects or other guideline or policy pages, we should seek to find and fix them; we could add something to that effect. What we're trying to avoid is the confused claim by some that style needs to come in from sources via COMMONNAME, which has actually never been the case, but a few people keep trying to make it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't elaborate any further per restrictions, sorry. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Further comments and discussion (continued)

Some history – TITLE used to be more explicitly aligned with MOS, back in 2008, when Special characters said "For the use of hyphens and dashes in page names, see Manual of Style (dashes)" and quite a few other explicit deferrals to the MOS. But there was a great upheaval in 2009, with some aspects of this being lost. In this case, it was PBS who demoted it with the same complaint he has now, expressed in his edit summary as "Changed wording about dashes so that this Policy is not dictated to by the MOS)". Pmanderson tried to further marginalize the MOS for dashes in particular here (it was later restored, for a while). Then in this edit by Rannpháirtí anaithnid the mention of MOS was hidden (piped), but still linked. It lasted, hidden, for about 15 months, and then Pmanderson nuked it in Jan. 2011 with his admonition to follow the styling in sources. When Noetica tried to fix it, Pmanderson reverted as "undiscussed change of policy"!. That "follow the sources" nonsense was partly fixed, but the link to the MOS as the relevant guideline does not seem to have survived the turmoil. Pmanderson eventually earned a permanent ban for his disruptive socking to evade his topic ban over such disruptive behavior, but much of the damage he did is yet to be repaired. This theory that the MOS is OK for styling text, but that we don't want it to affect styling in TITLES has reappeared at numerous RMs since; it seldom holds sway but often generates a lot of noise. Dicklyon (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any real difference between "policy" and "guideline" when it comes to titles? For instance, does it matter to bot operators, or to editing gnomes who have to know what formatting can be automatically corrected because there is already a consensus for the correction? I think there has been a lot of confusion over this in the past, with some people not realizing they can just start editing, without knowing anything about MOS at all, since someone will come along later and clean up the technical details. There seems to be an argument being made (and by people who should know better!) that someone can be blocked for using a comma the wrong way. —Neotarf (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a difference? To my mind, yes... but it's subtle and hard to explain. I think the confusion that sometimes occurs stems from the fact that Policy pages can and do contain guidance (and Guideline pages can repeat points of Policy and explain them in a focused way). To take this page as an example: there are essentially only three Policy points here:

1. All pages must have a unique title (for technical reasons)
2. Titles are ultimately determined by consensus.
3. Consensus on Titles is formed by applying five basic principles: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency.

To my mind that's the real extent of the policy. The rest of this page is guidance, designed to help editors understand and apply the five basic principles - to help them weigh and balance them appropriately in a given situation. Blueboar (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree. This idea that things like WP:COMMONNAME should be given a lot of weight and extreme interpretation because it's part of a policy page is crazy. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Some observations about the above comments The Manual of Style seems to be unique in its broad participation of individuals who have no prior knowledge of the subject. Can you imagine someone going to a section of WP dealing with internal combustion engines, demanding to have the concept of "carburetor" explained, and complaining bitterly that the presence and comments of engineers and car mechanics prevented ordinary people from participating in the discussion? And can you imagine those engineers and mechanics carefully and patiently explaining everything, and encouraging the participation of non-specialists? That is exactly what is happening in this MOS discussion, and I suspect that MOS, which is often opaque even to those who do know what a style guide is, will emerge from the fray even stronger and more unique in the field than it was before.

Here are three observations about the discussion so far.

• The non-specialists do not understand the proposal. In particular, they don't understand that "style" in this context means format, not content. In plain English, style can mean "a distinctive manner of expression (as in writing or speech)" (the second meaning here), but in the context of a style manual, it means "a convention with respect to spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and typographic arrangement and display followed in writing or printing" (the sixth meaning). If this was worded so as to be more clear to the non-specialist, I suspect 90% of the opposition would evaporate. Example: The title "Bill Clinton" as opposed to "William Jefferson Clinton" is an example of a title's content, chosen on the basis of reliable sources and common usage. It would not be effected by this proposal. The capitalization of Bill Clinton, as opposed to bill clinton, is a matter of style, or format, and would be determined based on MOS guidelines already in place. This is how it is done already, the language just makes it clear, for those who would argue punctuation.
• There are a few names here of those who won't accept the recent dash and hyphen consensus, and some others who never showed any interest in MOS before the recent disruptions at ANI, AN, RM, RFC/U, and at various articles over naming conventions for comets, airports, and wars. One has to wonder if their opposition to this proposal is a proxy for opposition to the hyphen and dash consensus.
• Some, mostly those who oppose the hyphen consensus, have said that punctuation of titles should be determined by "reliable sources'. In one recent example, an editor telephoned an airport, asked the unfortunate individual who answered the phone if their airport was spelled with a hyphen or an n-dash, and then changed the article title accordingly. Can you imagine this happening at thousands of airports all over the world as various Wikipedians conducted their own independent research for each airport? Alternatively, some have searched for outside authorities to submit to in deciding questions of punctuation, capitalization, and display for WP. But Misplaced Pages should not choose its style in the manner of lemmings rushing to the sea. WP style guide is based on best practices elsewhere, yes, and also on the needs of its readers, but because it is uniquely electronic, it is certainly unique enough, and prestigious enough, to develop its own style guide. Misplaced Pages does not choose what leader to follow. Misplaced Pages is a leader.

—Neotarf (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Brilliant commentary, Neotarf! I commend it to all participants. If people really do come here with an open mind, they can truly gain insight from that. And if not? Well ... they could always confine themselves to content, and leave style matters alone. It's a broad church! ☺ Noetica 05:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yup, it's well put. Thanks, Neotarf. Tony (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, both of you. The style engineers understand me well. The real challenge will be to hammer out language for the proposal that communicates this to everyone. —Neotarf (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Having read Neotarf's commentary, I think a more verbose explanation of "style" is needed in the question (and in WP:TITLE). I think that the definition of "style" in this context is completely different to the usage at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction aka WP:WAF. I am much more familiar with WAF over any other MOS page, and the useage style of style there is very different. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• That is a good, unaddressed point. However, nothing in that article conflicts with WP:TITLE. The only mention of a title I found was at WP:WAF#Conclusions, which shouldn't be controversial because it simply reminds us of WP:UNDUE. So nothing would change by making it explicit that WP:TITLE doesn't overrule that page. Art LaPella (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• You don't have to like the Manual of Style to like this edit. All it does is prevent people from claiming that the text covered by the guideline could be used as a title, and therefore the COMMONNAME policy overrules most any guideline they don't like. There is agreement that the title should be styled the same way as in the article, so the same MoS rules are applying, whether we make that explicit or not. We just need to make it explicit to stop the Wikilawyering. Art LaPella (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed amendments

I thank PBS for proposing an amendment that he thought might be a good alternative. I'd like see more of those, as it looks like there's a chance to find a way to address some of the opposition. Let's collect numbered amendments or alternatives here, so we can discuss them. My apologies if I overlooked some; just add them. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

1. proposed by PBS

Providing the other criteria as laid out in this policy and its naming conventions are met, article titles are styled in common with article text and headings, following guidelines in the WP:Manual of Style

2. proposed by Stfg

The WP:Manual of Style applies to all parts of an article, including the title. See especially its punctuation section. (This policy page on Article titles does not determine punctuation.)

3. proposed by Art LaPella

"The COMMONNAME process is not intended to apply to a title's style, which would conflict with the WP:Manual of Style guidelines."

What is "The COMMONNAME process"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant the process of choosing a title according to WP:COMMONNAME. Of course we can change the words; my goal was only to bypass the argument that the edit changes the Manual of Style into a policy. Art LaPella (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If it still isn't plain enough, we could just explicitly add (not replace) the sentence "This does not make the Manual of Style a policy." Art LaPella (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Help requested

A recent article I've worked on has an open question that tangentially relates to the above discussion. The article, Half Blood Blues', wp:commonname is Half-Blood Blues by a preponderance of wp:rs. All comments regarding the best title for that article are needed at Talk:Half Blood Blues#Title, Thank you. --My76Strat (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment