Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive. Precision and accuracy

message: Adding context to article titles: eg American Airlines flight 11 (WTC attack)
* +: makes more sense if you see a title in recent changed
* +: more descriptive
** Supported by Patrick, Tannin
Keeping titles as common as possible (but no more)
* +: Context can be given within the article
* +: searches should pick up info from the body of an article, or from category pages
* +: makes linking easier
* +: makes our naming conventions clear
** Supported by mav, Martin, Tannin
Summary added by Martin 22:17, 6 March 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, yeah, I just contradicted myself. I guess it comes down to having the simplest possible title that is not misleading. It all depends on the particular example. Take Korean Air flight KAL-007. That one is not confusing, because it was major headline news in its own right. American Airlines flight 11, on the other hand, was just yet another part of the WTC attack, and should be named that way. --Tannin 11:48, 7 March 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  In summary 

message: I'm trying to sort out lame edit war at Iron maiden, and hoped to find the basis in this policy... and I found it less clear than desireable. The edit war in question revolves around the question where the iron maiden (torture device) should reside (see Talk:Iron maiden#Requested move). Having closed that RM, I concluded that the band is the primary topic for "iron maiden" (despite the older meaning of the phrase). Thus, "When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?" dictates that iron maiden should redirect to the band.
I thought that having different articles at titles with slight capitalization difference is frowned upon (with possible exception of acronyms, like Pin vs. PIN). "Special" naming conventions like WP:NCF and WP:NCTV already state something similar, e.g:
When there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with an existing Wikipedia article, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is the primary topic for that name, title the film article like this: Film Title (film).
However, this very page provides an opposite example: Red meat vs. Red Meat. I think that the latter title is inadequate, and that it should be moved to Red Meat (comic). But in general, I think this page should be clearer on the topic (should it?).
Thoughts? --Duja► 07:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The conclusion obvious from the RM was that the band is the primary topic for Iron Maiden. I (continue to) disagree that it is the primary topic for iron maiden, which was not the subject of the RM anyway, and think this situation falls in the Red meat vs. red meat example. IMO, capitalization differences are fine for differentiating articles, especially since the article with the other capitalization can be easily handled with a hatnote. --JHunterJ 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no particular opinion on my own (I'm not lazy to use Shift key) what is best. The common practice (as enshrined in WP:NCP and WP:NCTV) is to not differentiate on capitalization only, but it's not universal, as Red M/meat and Iron M/maiden demonstrate; however, those are exceptions rather than the rule. Another difference between the two is that the primary topic in red meat case is the meat, so the "lazy typist" will arrive there immediately by typing "red meat". However, the "lazy typist" (which is the band's fan likely to be< >;) ) would arrive to the torture device in the band's case.There are actually two aspects to consider: internal linking (which is less of a problem, at least in iron maiden case, as any sane editor will title-case the wikilink to the band) and searching (which is the problem at hand, with "lazy typist" readers). --Duja► 12:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have no aversion to the shift key. In this case, though, the failure of Iron maiden (torture device) to be moved to Iron maiden should have resulted in the retention of Iron maiden (torture device), Iron Maiden, and Iron maiden as a redirect to Iron maiden (disambiguation) -- at which point, the dab page should have been moved over the redirect, or a different discussion about whether this should continue to be an exception to the WP:NCP/WP:NCTV guidelines should have been held. I like Iron Maiden (I have a few of their albums) and don't have much affinity for iron maidens (never owned any), but the primary topic of "iron maiden" should be the device (IMO of course). Similar musical confrontations, without the benefit of being able to distinguish by caps: Muse vs. Muse (band), Madonna vs. Madonna (entertainer), although the fans were sure that the band or entertainer was the primary topic. --JHunterJ 16:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some other examples of titles where capitalization has been decided to be insufficient disambiguation are Lethal Injection (album) and Death Certificate (album). The former was recently moved from  Lethal Injection, citing the latter as precedent. --GTBacchus(talk) 23:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many typers mistakenly use the wrong case or type all in one case or another. Because of this, titles differentiated only by case should be disambiguated. In a two-word title, a case change means there is only one letter of differentiation — easy to make a mistake. If there are other variables such as periods/full-stops, these can fall outside of any guideline.  —  AjaxSmack    22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization differences (and apparent contradiction) 

message: WP:NC(P) links here, and WP:NC (P) links to the naming conventions for people. Clearly we need more precision in our shortcuts. How should we straighten this out? --Dekimasuよ! 09:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the links have been fixed, and the shortcut redirected, and a dablink placed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). --jc37 10:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcuts 

message: An RFC on content related to this convention has been opened, comments are welcome. --MBisanz talk 01:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Hirohito#RFC: Appropriate Emperor Name]] 

message: The text of the secn & subsecn has been around "forever" essentially unchanged. If philosophy epitomizes the problems that all topic areas (not topics!) share, let's tweak the text and retitle the headings. If not, surely we have done the corresponding job elsewhere, sometime in the last 5 years, and we should move this text to that place, or to the place that for philosophy corresponds to that myriad of other places, and provide lks to all those places. --Jerzy•t 21:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think this section should go - there is nothing special about the way philosophical articles are handled in this regard. --Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "By topic" secn and its sole subsecn, "Philosophy" 

message: I propose listing the Oxford English Dictionary before the American Heritage Dictionary, as it is widely considered far more authoritative. Not sure, but I think Merriam-Webster should be second while we're at it... --Wulf (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OED vs. American Heritage Dictionary 

message: The section "Conflicts over precision" doesn't make any sense to me. Can someone who knows what it's trying to say rewrite it to make it clearer? Or perhaps we can just delete it? --Kotniski (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts over precision section 

message: Can we try to get this wording right? We have now:
In this case, try to avoid confusion, per the general principle: When a reader enters this term and clicks "Go", what article are they most likely expecting to view as a result? If there is a reasonable chance a reader might have been looking for another meaning, use an appropriate disambiguation technique:
But this is not quite logical; this general principle as stated would bear on the choice of primary topic (if any), not on the decision to disambiguate. The relevant principle here is rather that any meaning (article topic) that a reader might reasonably be looking for (not just the most likely one) should be made accessible. So I would propose the following more pertinent wording (or something similar):
In this case, try to avoid confusion, per the general principle: When readers enter this term and click "Go", what article might they reasonably be expecting to view as a result? If there is more than one meaning that they might be looking for, use an appropriate disambiguation technique:
Objections? --Kotniski (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Users usually don't look for more than one meaning at the same time. So, no, less clear and not an improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't my point. The point is that we're concerned here with the different meanings that different users might be looking for, not at all with which meaning is most likely being searched for. --Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If different spellings USUALLY have different meanings (see section title), each spelling USUALLY comes with the meaning most readers might be looking for. The guidance is only about covering for (slight) misspellings or alternate spellings that USUALLY (should/would) mean something different - and to which degree we cover that. Not every (less common) misspelling is covered with a hatnote in another article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see what you're getting at now. I"ve added a "however" to make it clear. --Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? No "however" needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there's a contrast or change of topic. If you say "Do A per principle X. Do B." then it reads as if B is part of what we do in accordance with principle X. But here, as we've established, "B" isn't anything to do with the principle we're quoting - it's a quite separate aspect of the topic; the other side of the coin, even. --Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Do A per principle X. If Y, do B." is valid English. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm not saying it's bad English, but the way it's written is confusing, since regardless of the "if", it looks as if the second part is a continuation of the first. I think I see what needs to be done - move the "principle" to the very first sentence of the paragraph, before the examples. --Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? No, doesn't make sense. I think you're trying to read something that isn't there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll show you what I mean on the page. It certainly makes more sense than what we have at the moment. --Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Something that isn't there? What do you mean? Of course it's there. I"m not trying to edit war, I thought we were having a civilized discussion; please WP:AGF. --Kotniski (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then stop it. Take a step back. Read it a few times. What you're doing doesn't make sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I"ve read it. Why do you keep reverting? Surely you can see the problem? There are two topics in this paragraph: (a) how to name articles; (b) how to apply disambiguation techniques. The "principle" as you want it stated relates to (a), not to (b). Everything I've tried to do in order to make that clear, you've rejected. What solution do you suggest? --Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, there is no problem. At least you've not been able to demonstrate that there is, as far as I can see. So, no, surely no solution in search of a problem is needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep describing the problem. Believe me, I read it, I'm an intelligent speaker of English, and I misunderstood it. If that's the case, then I presume that others will do likewise. So we should make it clearer somehow. --Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, don't "assume", maybe just admit a minor misreading on your part, instead of extrapolating your error to everyone. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't separate "another" (second sentence) from what it is referring to ("most likely meaning" in first sentence), by putting the examples in between. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And what problem do you have with putting "however" in between? It may be unnecessary, but does it do any harm? It certainly does good for people who read it as I did. --Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does harm in that it seems to suggest that A and B are mutually exclusive options, which is not the case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: And please stop the presumption "people who read it as I did", well they don't as far as I can tell. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, since you're so insistent, let's leave it for now.--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Any remaining objections to deleting the last two sections of this page, namely "Conflicts over precision" and "By topic/Philosophy", as suggested above under #"By topic" secn and its sole subsecn, "Philosophy" and #Conflicts over precision section? --Kotniski (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete the last two sections 

message: It is proposed to merge this page (and a number of others) with WP:Naming conventions. Please discuss at WT:Naming conventions#Merge. Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the proposed merged text is now in place at WP:Naming conventions. Do people feel the content of this page is now sufficiently well covered there that we can replace this page with a redirect to the appropriate section of that policy?--Kotniski (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of objections, then, I'm doing this. (The capitalization thing discussed below is also mentioned at WP:Naming conventions (capitalization).)--Kotniski (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: It seems pretty clear to me that consensus is for option number one.  Therefore I propose a change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) as this seems the most logical place for it.  I suggest the following new paragraph, where changes are in italics:
"It is possible to create two non-redirect pages with the same name but different capitalization and this is an acceptable method of disambiguation.  If this arises, a disambiguation link should always be placed at the top of both pages, linking either to a dedicated disambiguation page or to the other article."
I think that is all the changes that are needed to guidelines as it makes it clear that is allowable as well as technically possible, something that is not currently obvious.  Further it does not mandate it because, as per my comments above, I am certain there will be cases where it wouldn't be sensible to disambiguate by capitalisation - these can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  Dpmuk (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I would say "hatnote" instead of "disambiguation link"; the two pages might be articles and link to each other (), might be articles and link to a single, shared disambiguation page, might be articles and link to separate disambiguation pages also differing by caps, might be separate articles and link to separate disambiguation pages that differ by more than just caps, might be an article and a disambiguation page (and the dab page wouldn't need a hatnote), or might be two disambiguation pages (this case should probably result in a merge, IMO). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal