Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Born2cycle (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 6 January 2011 (→Titles: +john k). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I love bicycling, so I believe I was... born to cycle...

A goal: naming stability at Misplaced Pages

Decisions about what the titles of our articles should be is an area that most editors seem to try to avoid, but is a big interest of mine at Misplaced Pages (we all have our roles). In particular, my main interest is to bring stability to the area of article naming. What I mean by naming stability is that the number of articles moved per day, and especially the number brought for discussion to WP:RM, is reduced to a trickle compared to the torrent that it is today.

Having this interest in article titles means, as my edit history clearly shows, that I am heavily involved in article naming discussions, with respect to policy and guidelines as well as individual article naming disputes. I have been criticized numerous times for spending too much time and energy posting comments and not enough editing content, and my defense is that we all contribute in different ways, and my chosen primary area of interest, focus and expertise, at least for now, is stabilizing article titles.

Because I seek stability in naming, I am a strong proponent of having all article titles in Misplaced Pages each adhere to the naming criteria listed in policy at WP:TITLE -- Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision ("only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously"), Conciseness, and Consistency -- as much as is reasonably possible. In the countless arguments I have encountered in page move discussions, one stands out as particualrly compelling. In the WP:RM discussion about whether to move Victoria of the United Kingdom to "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom — Or even better, Queen Victoria", DrKiernan argued in terms of how each of the alternatives being considered, including the status quo, adhere to the naming criteria:

• Support The current title is ambiguous with Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom, and is the least used of the three alternative names.
  "Queen Victoria" redirects here, which indicates that it is primary usage currently, even though there are other Queen Victorias.
  So, "Queen Victoria" meets three of the five WP:AT criteria: recognizability, naturalness, conciseness. If "Queen Victoria" is or becomes ambiguous, then "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" is still more common than "Victoria of the United Kingdom" and meets two of the five WP:AT criteria: recognizability, preciseness. "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is the least common name and meets one of the WP:AT criteria: consistency.
  My choices are "Queen Victoria" first (most common name, meets 3 WP:AT criteria), "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" second (second most common name, meets 2 WP:AT criteria), and "Victoria of the United Kingdom" third (least common name, meets 1 WP:AT criterium). DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[

I was the one who closed that proposal, and, persuaded by DrKiernan's argument, found in favor of Queen Victoria.

I believe maximizing adherence to this criteria, as demonstrated by DrKiernan's analysis, promotes stability because the reasons someone may reasonably have to move an article are minimized and usually eliminated once an article is at the title that meets that criteria as much as it reasonably can. Time and time again I have seen years of disputes over titles be resolved once the article in question is moved to the title that best meets that criteria. For example, when my Queen Victoria decision was protested primarily on the procedural grounds that it was closed by a non-admin (several non-admins knowledgeable about naming policy and guidelines try to help out with the backlog when it gets big), the subsequent proposal to move it from Queen Victoria to Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom failed.

This is why I am also an advocate of having specific naming guidelines provide guidance only when the primary guidance at WP:TITLE falls short of clearly indicating a name, usually in order to indicate how an article should be disambiguated if disambiguation is required so that similar articles are disambiguated similarly. For categories of articles for which a single natural and most common name is not obvious, like for U.S. highways, specific guidelines are also helpful. But when a title is clearly indicated for a given article by the criteria at WP:TITLE alone, then specific naming guidelines should have no application. I find that most naming disputes (not including those centered on which topic, among several, if any, is the primary topic) are ultimately caused by more specific naming guidelines (or sometimes undocumented conventions) indicating a title that is different from the one indicated by the criteria at WP:TITLE (most often the specific guideline or convention indicates one title, even though a natural and more concise name is available).

As straight-forward as this reasoning may seem, many do not agree with me. Most who disagree with me seem to find appealing the idea of having every article in a particular area named in the same way. They point out that readers are unaffected (thanks to redirects), and these consistent naming conventions make it easier for editors working on those articles to create links to the articles. For example, here is a classic discussion from 2006 about whether all Lost TV series episodes should be disambiguated with either (Lost) or "(Lost episode)". The idea of not disambiguating those not needing disambiguation is not even initially considered, though later in the discussion the idea is introduced, and through much debate and consternation all documented in the archives of WT:NC-TV, and which eventually went to Arbcom, reason eventually prevailed with the guideline for TV episode names that states: "For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name". TV episode names have been stable ever since. Same with the guideline (at least what is in essence regarding disambiguating only when necessary). If you look at the guideline history, you will see dozens of edits in 2006, but once this was resolved, relative stability. This is also reflected in the stability of the names of the articles that fall within this domain. I see this pattern over and over again for all sorts of articles.

All the evidence I am aware of supports the position that maximal adherence to WP:TITLE criteria is ultimately the only path to true naming stability at Misplaced Pages. From U.S. cities on the AP list to city names in Canada, Australia, Philippines, etc., to names of TV series, TV episodes, movies, films, military bases, company names, car models, actors, sports figures, etc., etc., the natural law of Misplaced Pages is clear: if naming stability is sought, disambiguate only when necessary; otherwise, use the plain natural concise name of the subject. I know of no reason for this natural law of Misplaced Pages to not apply to any article in Misplaced Pages. If the topic has a clear, natural and concise unambiguous most common name, if the title is that name then it will be stable; if the title is some other name than it will not be stable.

But resistance to accept this remains strong at the start of 2011, particularly by those who prioritize the value of naming all articles within some group similarly over using the natural and most concise name for those articles to which it is available. The names of articles in those few categories of articles where that thinking still prevails, such as names of royalty (WP:NCROY) and names of U.S. cities that are not on the AP list (WP:PLACES#United States), therefore remain unstable and rife with conflict.

I welcome comments, questions, suggestions and relevant evidence about this to be shared on my talk page.

Some favorites

Policies

• Assume Good Faith
• No Personal Attacks
• Use the most easily recognized name, Use the most common name, Use precise names when necessary

Essays on Misplaced Pages Behavior

• Don't revert due to "no consensus"

Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". Except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Misplaced Pages policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.

• What "Ignore all rules" means

"Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons.

• I just don't like it
• The Last Word
• Don't be a dick
• Don't be a BLP zealot!

Favorite Quotations

Good advice for me

--User:Cynwolfe

Titles

In response to: "Rather than an endless cycle of RM discussions about PRIMARYTOPIC, the neutral and common convention in this subject area provides stability for article names. That saves editors from wasting time discuss the primariness or otherwise of one topic after another, and fixing the resulting links.".

john k (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

—Synchronism (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

--JinJian (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

--User:Kotniski

--Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Other

--S. Rich

Some least favorites

Edits

The beginning of the end for naming consistency within Misplaced Pages arguably occurred with this edit to the common names guideline on June 4, 2006.

This perhaps seemingly innocuous change made the exception the rule, and consistency (with general naming conventions) the exception. What it allowed is the creation of specific naming guidelines that are specific to any group of articles to not use the most common name for the topic of each article as the title of that article, but whatever name is specified is by that particular naming guideline.

True naming consistency

*'''Support''' - For true consistency across Misplaced Pages, ] that applies to all articles with respect to title determination should not be trumped by a desire for consistency with similar articles. Consistency with similar articles should only apply when ] is required and the principal criteria that applies to all articles does not clearly indicate what title to use. That is not the case here because ], ] and ] clearly indicate XXXXXXXXXXX. Since disambiguation is not needed, consistency with similar articles is not applicable. --~~~~

• An outstanding RM decision. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jerusalem_Day#Requested_move

• The RFC/RM decision regarding Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II: Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom/Article_title

• Move of places in Australia.
  • Talk:Light_Square,_Adelaide#Requested_move

Examples of naming consistency

Below is a list of examples of pairs of titles from similar articles, each of which is consistent with general naming principles, but doesn't appear to be named consistently with the other. What this illustrates is that it is normal for titles of similar articles to not follow the same format, and that when the titles of two similar articles don't follow the same format (typically, one is disambiguated while the other is not), that doesn't mean something is wrong that needs to be fixed.

• Laeken — Haren, Belgium
  • Suburbs of Brussels
  • No conflicts for Laeken, so no need to disambiguate, but Haren needs to be disambiguated from other uses of that name.
  • Note how the information that there is no other Laeken (or this one is the primary topic, which, if so, is made obvious by a hatnote to another article or dab page at the top of the article) but there is another Haren is instantly gleaned from these titles, information that would be much more difficult to ascertain if all suburbs of Brussels were disambiguated whether they needed to be or not.
• Queen Victoria — Victoria of Baden
  • Royalty; queens named "Victoria"
• Nicholas Campbell — Douglas Campbell (actor)
  • Canadian actors
  • Both are actors, but this information is given in the title only when necessary for disambiguation.
  • Again, note that we instantly can see that Nicholas is either the Nicholas Campbell in Misplaced Pages, or is the primary topic for that name, and also that there is more than one Douglas Campbell.
• Happy Sad — Lorca (album)
  • Albums by Tim Buckley
• Lorca — Cieza, Murcia*
  • Cities in Murcia
• Confirmed Dead — The Economist (Lost)
  • Episodes of Lost (TV series)
• San Francisco — Salinas, California
  • California cities.
  • Note that in this case Salinas would be disambiguated even if it was the only Salinas, because, unfortunately, all U.S. cities that are not on the "AP list" are disambiguated whether it's necessary for disambiguation, or not. So we can't tell whether a given U.S. city name is the only (or primary) use of that name just by looking at the title, unless it happens to be on the "AP list".
• Limerick — Cork (city)
  • Cities within synonymous counties in Ireland.
  • Here the disambiguation of Cork illustrates the technique that usefully differentiates a use from other uses of that name. Of course the other use is the material to make bottle stoppers, so this Cork is differentiated by noting that it is a city.
• New Providence High School — Union High School (New Jersey)
  • High schools in Union County, New Jersey
• Koshlauch — Alat, Russia — Shali, Republic of Tatarstan — Gruzinsky (settlement) — Murali, Arsky District, Republic of Tatarstan (rural localities in the Republic of Tatarstan, Russia)
• Saint-Edmond — Sainte-Foy, Saône-et-Loire (Communes of Saône-et-Loire)
• Putsj — Bravo (magazine) (Youth magazines)
• Ebro — Ega (river) — Esgueva -- Esla (river) (rivers of Spain that start with E)
• Spandau (locality) — Mitte (locality) - Wedding (Berlin) — Britz (Localities of Berlin)

In each case, the reason for the apparent inconsistency is the same:

Because in Misplaced Pages we strive for titles to be consistent with disambiguate only when necessary.

Userboxes User:UBX/Religion Is Harmful This user is a computer scientist. Lib This user believes in the principles of Libertarianism. government This user is a minarchist.

• Wikipedian computer scientists