Talk:Do not feed the animals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PROD's rationale[edit]

Part of the PROD's rationale is not correct. The deletion discussion linked to was about a musical work, which is not "Almost identical" to this article. Chris857 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darn: I assumed, and was busted. Thank you (really). I've removed that justification from the PROD. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry: I'm a bonehead, and did a PROD again, when I meant to nominate for deletion. Have reverted, and will now nominate for deletion. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

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.
I think this discussion has wound down now, without no consensus for any change. Putting the two parts of the discussion together, we have:
  • A clear consensus that the article title need not be notable as a phrase.
  • An even split regarding the suitability of the present title:
    • The article title is fine as it is: 6 editors (203.*.*.*, 24.151.116.25, David Eppstein, Quiddity, JustBerry, Codename Lisa)
    • The article title is not fine as it is: 6 editors (Ansh666, Dan Griscom, Cnilep, The Mysterious El Willstro, daranz, cyclopiaspeak)
    • The article is silly and should be deleted: 1 editor (NickCT)
  • A complete lack of consensus regarding alternative titles, with "Human feeding of animals," "Human feeding of wildlife," "Typical zoo and park policies," "Artificial feeding of animals," and "Artificial feeding of wildlife" all being suggested as alternatives. -- 203.171.197.4 (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the recent AfD for this article was to keep it but open a discussion on the title of the article. The appropriateness of the current title, and suggestions of possible alternatives need to be discussed here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fine as it is. One reasonable option suggested at AfD was artificial feeding of wildlife, which is a little less quirky and a little more whitebread than the current title, but even that editor admitted that "do not feed the animals" was a more common search term. The existing title clearly indicates the subject matter (i.e. not feeding wild or feral animals in situations where it is harmful to do so). The existing title is also unambiguous, and it is more commonly used (1,030,000 Google hits or 6,580 just in books; compared to 23,100 hits or 591 in books for "artificial feeding of wildlife"). I don't see mild quirkiness as a problem, and so I see no reason to change the current title. -- 203.171.197.5 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a point of comparison, there are an estimated 2.8 million Google hits on the web and 986,000 in Google Books for "then she said". No one should take this to mean that then she said is appropriate as a title for the article Speech. The "Google test" is a notable fallacy, particularly as regards WORDISSUBJECT. Use of a phrase by itself does not suggest that the phrase is notable as a phrase. Cnilep (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the use of Ghits for things other than notability tests is standard Wikipedia practice -- see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- 202.124.73.5 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase doesn't need to be notable as a phrase; this is about picking the best title for the article. Per WP:TITLE, that's about:
  • Recognizability (I would argue "Do not feed the animals" wins there -- the GHits in this case do demonstrate that "Do not feed the animals" is very frequently used to refer to this topic, with "artificial feeding of wildlife" coming second, and "human feeding of wildlife" failing),
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for (again "Do not feed the animals" is the most likely search term),
  • Precision ("Do not feed the animals" is at least as precise as the alternatives given, with "human feeding of wildlife" failing because it doesn't exclude legitimate feeding in places like zoos),
  • Conciseness (alternatives presented are about the same), and
  • Consistency (there's nothing similar enough to be consistent with). -- 202.124.89.1 (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WORDISSUBJECT doesn't apply here, because the phrase itself isn't the encyclopedic subject. Compare, say, "let there be light" for an example where the phrase is the subject. In this case, the subject is very obviously the not feeding of animals. The question is, what phrase best acts as a title (all multi-word titles are phrases)? The comments above show that "Do not feed the animals" best meets the criteria of WP:TITLE, and that's the relevant Wikipedia policy here. -- 202.124.89.1 (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:TITLECHANGES for relevant policy. In particular, any suggested title change should, per that policy, be listed at WP:Requested moves. -- 202.124.89.1 (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how the "encyclopedic subject" of let there be light isn't the phrase "let there be light". This is a completely different case. Anyways, per WP:PRECISION, also part of WP:TITLE, an article with the title of "Do not feed the animals" could be construed as an article about the phrase and not the concept, so it wouldn't be a good title. Also, the way I read WP:PRECISION and WP:WORDISSUBJECT, if an article has a phrase as a title, 1) it should be about that title, and 2) the title phrase should be notable. Are you going to suggest then that I can use, say, "E=MC2" as the title for Albert Einstein or Special relativity? That's a roughly analogous situation here. Ansh666 07:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC) (On a side-note, we decide on a title to change to here, and then bring it to WP:Requested moves per WP:TITLECHANGES. Ansh666 07:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • The "encyclopedic subject" of let there be light is of course the phrase "let there be light". That is indeed "a completely different case" because here the encyclopedic subject is very clearly not the phrase. And you're completely misreading WP:WORDISSUBJECT because pretty much every article title with more than two consecutive words is indeed a phrase. You don't seem to understand what a phrase is, and so what you say makes no sense at all. In fact, it's clear that this article, like most, is about its content, not its title, so there is no WP:PRECISION problem. And yes, E=MC2 would make a reasonable (though slightly inferior) title for Mass–energy equivalence, which it redirects to. -- 203.171.197.2 (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To recap my relevant concerns in the AfD dicussion, the current title is a phrase that is not notable re: WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Unless we can come up with a new phrase that can be shown to be notable, we'll need to move it to a title that is something descriptive rather than a phrase (e.g. Human feeding of wildlife). We'll also need to put in some work linking from other articles, or I'm concerned readers won't be able to find the article. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "do not feed the animals" is used 1,030,000 times per Google; I think that's more than enough to justify its use as a title. In any case, the title isn't the subject; the title describes the subject (or are you going to nominate for deletion every single article with a phrase for a title?)
WP:WORDISSUBJECT is irrelevant here, this article is not a dictionary entry.
And who is this "we" you talk about? I de-orphaned the article ages ago.
Also, per stats.grok.se people are indeed finding the article; partly because the title is in fact the best search term to use.
This is one of the best-titled articles on Wikipedia; if it wasn't for the drawn-out AfD process, it would have made for a fantastic DYK hook. -- 203.171.197.5 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Human feeding of wildlife" is also a phrase, of course, and it would make a lousy title (it gets only 100 Google hits, and just 1 in books). -- 203.171.197.5 (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
("1,030,000" is just one of Google's usual lies. If you click through the results you'll find they mysteriously stop after 570 hits. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think it's a lie; Google is just programmed to limit the hits it explicitly lists. And for the book hits, you can page through them all. -- 203.171.197.2 (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then, by your logic, every title with more than one word is a phrase. Ansh666 07:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please read the article phrase before engaging in further discussion on this. -- 203.171.197.2 (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like "Human feeding of animals" gets everything through - it's a rather large topic, and this is the most WP:PRECISE I can think of. Ansh666 07:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all precise, because authorised and beneficial feeding should be excluded from the subject matter, except where it serves as a contrast to the main point. The article definitely doesn't cover farmers feeding their cows, for example. Your suggested title also fails the Recognizability and Naturalness criteria. -- 203.171.197.2 (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I note that I seem to be the only person in this discussion so far that's actually been involved with writing this (or related) articles. If you want to change the article's scope, that should be discussed too. -- 203.171.197.2 (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's bring all parts of this conversation down here:
You're mistaking the grammatical definition of a phrase with another definition, which is also in the lead of phrase: "There is one another form of phrases called idioms, in other words idioms are also known as phrases." - this definition is what WP:WORDISSUBJECT is talking about, not the grammatical definition. This causes this specific WP:PRECISION problem. With the current title, the question stands: is the article about the feeding, or is it about the (idiomatic) phrase "Do not feed the animals"?
That can't be right, because WP:WORDISSUBJECT gives World music and Lake Michigan-Huron as examples of phrases. An idiom "is a combination of words that has a figurative meaning, due to its common usage. An idiom's figurative meaning is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made." There's nothing like that here. -- 202.124.75.21 (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per your comments above, I was wrong about the scope of the article; I'd support "Human feeding of wildlife".
And a final note: WP:HERE states that "This means that a user is here primarily to help improve encyclopedia articles and content, and to provide constructive input into communal discussions and processes aimed at improving the project" (emphasis is mine). You have a way of willfully ignoring content that you link to in order to prove your point. Ansh666 17:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I haven't been clear on "phrase", "title" and "subject", so I'll try to be clearer. Of course most (all?) Wikipedia article titles are "phrases", most of those title phrases are not "notable", and of course that's just fine. The problem is when the title is not descriptive of a topic but is instead the topic itself. If that's true, then WP:NAMING and WP:WORDISSUBJECT must be taken into account, and the topic and title must be notable.

If you tell someone "I am going to talk about Gardening in urban environments" then they'll expect you to talk about the issues raised by gardens in cities. But, if you tell someone "I am going to talk about Grow food in your back yard", then they'll hear the complete sentence and will expect you to talk about the sentence itself. Similar examples: an article titled Do not over-tighten the bolts that talks about maximum bolt torque, an article titled Think twice before doing drugs that expounds upon the risks of using illegal drugs, or an article titled Do not park here that discusses limitations on where you can leave your vehicle. In all these cases, the listener will expect you to talk about the specific phrase that is the title, and will be confused when you instead talk in generalities. (These titles might work for magazine articles, where the rules are freer and it can even be a good thing that the title expresses more than the article, but the rules are tighter for Wikipedia articles.)

Another example is Elvis has left the building. People, even those who haven't heard of Elvis, won't expect the article to talk about the building that no longer contains a person named Elvis. They'll wonder about the significance of the title itself, read the article, and learn that the phrase "Elvis has left the building" was famously said a number of times (and see documentation on the notability of the phrase itself).

So now we have an article titled Do not feed the animals. The title is a complete sentence: it has a subject (the listener), an object (animals), and a verb ("feed"). It is a command: the listener is being instructed not to feed the animals. The only way this makes sense as an encyclopedic title is when the subject of the article is indeed the phrase "Do not feed the animals". Because of all this, the article title in and of itself must pass Wikipedia's notability criteria (see WP:WORDISSUBJECT). Nobody has been able to produce references which discuss the phrase "Do not feed the animals" as an important item in and of itself; in fact, the recent work on the article has just moved it further from the actual phrase and more into general animal management issues. So, the current title is inappropriate for the current article.

Please: if you object to my conclusion, be clear on just what Wikipedia standards allow you to have an article where the title is a complete sentence, but the subject of the article is not the sentence itself. And, if you feel there are other articles that are good counter-examples to my arguments, please list them so we can all learn. Thanks. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the current title is a complete imperative sentence, which is a trifle unusual, but that doesn't mean that somehow the title is the subject of the article. I think it's obvious what the subject of the article is and that WP:WORDISSUBJECT doesn't apply. And, as the editor below points out, the current title meets WP:COMMONNAME, which "human feeding of wildlife" certainly does not. -- 202.124.75.35 (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the "trifle unusual" department, can you find another Wikipedia article whose title is a complete sentence but isn't about that complete sentence? And, in the "common name" department this title reads as a common name for a specific command, not a name for a general subject. This article is about a general subject, not a specific command, right? Then we should give it a name which evokes that general subject. Yes, "Do not feed the animals" is popular in search results, but that does not overcome the confusing nature of the title. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the "common name" department, most books about the subject, whether discussing zoos, parks, or backyards, do indeed tend to use the command "Do not feed the animals" to refer to the subject of no-feeding policies, probably because the command is so widely used on signs. I don't think that causes any confusion; it would certainly make "Do not feed the animals" the most common search term, and this is the Wikipedia article I think people would expect to find with that search term. I'm still not seeing any problem with the title. -- 202.124.72.31 (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current title The current title is clear and corresponds to numerous secondary sources that entitle this topic in the same manner (WP:COMMONNAME). I do not consider WP:WORDISSUBJECT to be applicable as the phraseology of the title is not the subject of the article. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to say that it is difficult to have a discussion like this when a number of the participants are anonymous. Talk:Do not feed the animals#Article title has seen opinions expressed by User:24.151.116.25, User:202.124.73.5, User:202.124.89.1, User:203.171.197.2, and User:203.171.197.5. In addition, the preceding AfD discussion saw opinions expressed by User:86.150.211.181, User:202.124.73.1, User:202.124.88.7, User:202.124.88.20, User:202.124.89.4, User:202.124.89.16, User:202.124.89.39, and User:203.171.197.20. That's thirteen different IP addressed accounts; do they represent thirteen editors' opinions? Fewer? More? My guess is it's around three to five, but there's no way for us to know. No, I don't want to exclude anonymous discussion participants, and I certainly don't want to discourage anonymous edits. I'm just saying that it's easier for me to hear someone's viewpoint when I can see them as individuals rather than random computer addresses, and I doubt I'm alone in that. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a consequence of the fact that the article was primarily written by various IP editors from different part of the world. It's natural that we would have a voice on the talk page. I hope you're not trying to deny us that. -- 202.124.75.21 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using IP geolocation (available on the Special:Contributions page), this section has seen 3 IP participants (24.151.116.25 from the New York area, 202.124.73.5/202.124.89.1 from near Mintabie, South Australia, and 203.171.197.2/203.171.197.5 from Melbourne). The AfD has seen 3 as well (86.150.211.181 from Worcester, and the 202.'s from Mintabie and the 203. from Melbourne from above). Dan, for future reference, if the first two portions of an IP are the same, it's probably the same person or at least the same neighborhood. Also, I'd say that the 203.'s and 202.'s are the same person, commuting to and from home and work or school or something like that, based on behaviour. At least they're not deliberately make it seem like they're different people. Ansh666 04:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not trying to exclude. I'm just noting that we're having a discussion between editors here, and over time the participants build up impressions of who each person is. When someone here reads a new comment labeled "Dan Griscom" they'll think "Oh, that's Dan; I remember he stresses WWWW and XXXX, and he ignores YYYY and ZZZZ". But, when a new comment comes in from IP address 123.456.78.90, it comes without history, as if the person had never commented before. That makes the discussion much choppier, and it's difficult to construct threads of argument. Some of the IP commenters have even said things like "That's why I voted 'no' above", when there's no way for others to have noticed that. Yes, we could keep track of IP addresses, but they change, and even the same address may be used by multiple people, so who's going to do that?
The net result is that IP-addressed commenters are naturally going to appear less as coherent people and more as just a series of disconnected comments, which harms their positions in the discussion. I understand there may be external reasons to remain unregistered, and Wikipedia has an explicit policy to allow unregistered editing and commenting, but the unregistered commenters might think again about the benefits of participating as a registered user. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dan - I've assumed in this entire thing that I've been dealing with at most 3 IPs, and that's without geolocating. Behaviour is a lot more important than name or IP labels, which you learn once you hang around SPI enough. Ansh666 16:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like the policy says, IPs are human too. -- 202.124.72.31 (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note, that's an essay, not a policy. Ansh666 23:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think we're human, then? -- 202.124.72.24 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are machines capable of logical fallacies? Ansh666 03:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A machine that could satisfy the Turing test would necessarily be capable of committing logical fallacies but commission of a logical fallacy by a machine would not itself satisfy the Turing test. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we expand the Article somewhat, we could rename it Typical zoo and park policies. How's that sound? It still sounds somewhat natural, and like most Article titles, it isn't a complete sentence. I subscribe to Dan Griscom's arguments above regarding why the title should be a fragment rather than a sentence. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offering a coherent objection (not wanting a title which is a sentence), although I don't believe any Wikipedia policies exclude such titles. However, this article covers not only zoo and park feeding policies but also those for urban spaces and backyards. These logically belong together because the effects of feeding (vitamin and mineral deficiencies, behavioral changes, increased disease transmission) are the same in each case. The suggestion of "Typical zoo and park policies" would imply a reduction in scope in some areas as well as a radical expansion in others -- it would be a totally different article. I don't think that that kind of radical surgery to content is the answer to a dispute about a title. Any alternate title should reflect the content of this article, which is about not feeding non-domestic animals. -- 202.124.75.20 (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything to be gained from trying to combine this article with littering policies, and ticketing policies, and tourist policies and all kinds of other unrelated zoo and park policies. I think such an article would be a bit of a hodge-podge, as well as cutting out some important parts of the existing content. -- 202.124.72.6 (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I'm sorry for asking this question again, but it's still not clear to me from the way this article is evolving: What is the concept this article treats? Is it 'The message "do not feed the animals"' (which, not withstanding objections that WORDISSUBJECT does not apply, are still the first seven words of the article)? Is it " polic[ies] of not feeding animals" (also from the first sentence of the lead)? Is it practices of feeding animals more generally, including limiting their feeding (the concept that I thought might be worth keeping during the AfD)? Is it specific to zoos and parks (where the animals may be more like livestock, in that they are actively fed by keepers), or does it extend to "other places where people come into contact with wildlife" (again from the lead)? Truly, I apologize if this sounds like I'm beating a dead horse, but (1) the answer to this question will greatly influence the article title, and (2) I suspect that the contributors to this discussion have different ideas about what the concept of the article is or should be. Cnilep (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is about (from the lede) "polic[ies] of not feeding wild and feral animals in situations where either the animals, or the people doing the feeding, might be harmed." It relates to zoos, national parks, backyards, and public spaces, which are the "places where people come into contact with wildlife," and which share common factors motivating no-feeding policies. I would point out that the article, in essentially this form, was kept at AfD. There are review processes for anyone unhappy with that decision (and I realise that many editors felt very strongly about the decision), although it seems to me unlikely that the decision would be overturned. The current form of the article represents a WP:CONSENSUS of the several editors that worked on it during the AfD process. I am aware that some people in this discussion would like to see a completely different article, and they are of course welcome to write any number of other articles. Such articles would of course generate debates about article relationships. For example, should Typical zoo and park policies exist, it might well have a short section on no-feeding policies for which this would be the main article, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Similarly, a general article on feeding animals (should it be written) might refer to this article as an example of inappropriate feeding. Some potential new articles would generate merge debates. However, there's no point in crossing those bridges before we come to them, it seems to me. -- 202.124.73.12 (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dan Griscomb, Ansh666, 24.151.116.25, and I also participated in the AfD discussion, which closed as "keep and open a discussion on the article's title." At any rate, thank you for editing the lead to reflect what you see as the concept the article is intended to treat. If I may say so, though, the current wording seems to stretch to make "Do not feed the animals" an appropriate label for that concept.
Just to restate what I said at AfD, "the concepts of controlling the feeding of wild or domestic animals seems article-worthy". That is not to say that other things might not be equally worthy, but that is what I, personally, see as an appropriate concept for this article. And – the last thing I intend to say in this discussion – I don't think the sentence, "Do not feed the animals", appropriately expresses that concept. Cnilep (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expressed some misgivings about the title at AfD myself; it's just that it does get across the concept very precisely, and there doesn't seem to be a better title that expresses the concept and has widespread support (at least none has been suggested so far). To rephrase myself, this article is about prohibitions on feeding certain kinds of animals (i.e. do not feed). There are at least two additional articles I can think of: (1) relating to the feeding of domestic animals, and (2) relating to the authorised feeding of wild animals in zoos (i.e. a daughter article of zoo). But those would be very different articles from this one. You seem not so much to be objecting to the title of this article, as expressing the fact that you would like this article to be replaced by a completely different one. Now the vote on this article in its present form was "keep" but there's nothing stopping anyone from writing those other articles, which would certainly be an asset to Wikipedia. To the best of my knowledge, there is no upper limit on Wikipedia's article count. As to the title of this article, we've had our mandated discussion, and it's beginning to sound like several people strongly dislike the title, but that there's no consensus at all for replacing it by anything else. In addition, I must say that I find the incredible hostility expressed to IP editors here very, very disappointing. -- 202.124.72.18 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, I'll say that you've expressed incredible hostility towards those who disagree with you - you've been (sometimes deliberately, I suspect) misreading my every statement to further feed your righteousness. I've been trying to WP:AGF, but at every turn you seem to be proving me wrong. As you're right about there being no consensus, I implore you to notify everyone else who took part in the AfD (regardless of whether they expressed an opinion on the matter or not), as nothing will get done with 4 people here anyways. I'm leaving this discussion. Ansh666 19:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just writing to say that I did not take anything you said as hostility towards IPs. On the other hand, I also do not see 202s arguments as hostile. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article that was nominated for AfD was an article about the phrase "Do not feed the animals" (see here). At some point during the AfD, somebody (likely Warden, in his typical style) decided to change the article more or less completely into what it is now about, as Oz-IP pointed out above and I agree with. In my opinion, an article with the current title should be more like the article nominated for AfD, which would likely have been merged and redirected into this current article had this already existed at the time. Ansh666 03:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the article as nominated was a little confused in terms of topic, although the bulk of the content as it existed at that time (the longer paragraphs 2 and 3) still exist in the current article. However, I would strongly oppose any attempt to revert this article back to the form it was in when it was nominated for deletion. In any case, that's not what this discussion is about: this discussion is about the best title for the (substantially edited) article that emerged from the AfD process. It seems to me that many people have nagging doubts about the title as it stands, but that there is (at least as yet) no alternative title with wide support. -- 202.124.73.11 (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will you please stop misinterpreting my comments? I'm stating that the original article would not have survived AfD. Ansh666 04:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well that I agree on, but in that case, what's your point? -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Does there always have to be one? Ansh666 06:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some recent bold changes to the lede by User:Cnilep seem to be setting up artificial feeding of wildlife as an alternate title. For reasons given above, I still think do not feed the animals is a better title, but artificial feeding of wildlife does get 591 Google books hits, so a weak WP:COMMONNAME case can be made for it. It might perhaps make a compromise solution. There may also be sensible alternate titles of the form "Prohibitions on xxx." Whatever happens, though, the article title should appear in the article lede. -- 202.124.73.19 (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the user who requested creation of the redirect "Artificial feeding of wildlife", I think the inclusion of the redirect name in the lede is useful (per Wikipedia:Title#Treatment_of_alternative_names but I agree that the current title should always be included in the lede and best practices suggest it should be used in the first sentence. My opinion is that "Do not feed the animals" is the more common and recognizable name and should remain as the title per WP:COMMONNAME. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Artificial feeding of animals" or equivalent title. "Do not feed the animals" is a phrase which is not the topic of this article. It's a very fine redirect (until someone writes an article on the phrase itself, that is) but it is by no means a meaningful title for this, no more than Look at tiny things is a good title for an article on microscopes.-- cyclopiaspeak! 15:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC[edit]

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.
I think this discussion has wound down now, without no consensus for any change. Putting the two parts of the discussion together, we have:
  • A clear consensus that the article title need not be notable as a phrase.
  • An even split regarding the suitability of the present title:
    • The article title is fine as it is: 6 editors (203.*.*.*, 24.151.116.25, David Eppstein, Quiddity, JustBerry, Codename Lisa)
    • The article title is not fine as it is: 6 editors (Ansh666, Dan Griscom, Cnilep, The Mysterious El Willstro, daranz, cyclopiaspeak)
    • The article is silly and should be deleted: 1 editor (NickCT)
  • A complete lack of consensus regarding alternative titles, with "Human feeding of animals," "Human feeding of wildlife," "Typical zoo and park policies," "Artificial feeding of animals," and "Artificial feeding of wildlife" all being suggested as alternatives. -- 203.171.197.4 (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must article titles which are phrases be notable as phrases, or must they merely satisfy the criteria in WP:TITLE? Does the current title meet WP:TITLE? -- 202.124.89.1 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest a clarification to this survey, as the above actually asks three questions. Of course articles must satisfy the criteria in WP:TITLE, so I'd suggest removing that question. So, this leaves two questions:
  • Must article titles which are phrases be notable as phrases (beyond merely satisfying WP:TITLE)?
  • Does the current title meet WP:TITLE?
Let me know if I didn't do this correctly. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • No and yes -- WP:TITLE is the relevant policy here (the title need not be notable as a phrase), and the current title meets WP:TITLE. -- 202.124.89.1 (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment and no per Dan's revised questions - the current title does not meet WP:TITLE, most specifically WP:PRECISION, especially with regards to WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Basically, the first question is moot because of this. Ansh666 07:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and no. Article titles can be non-notable phrases, but this article title doesn't meet WP:TITLE. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC) (edited 18:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • considering that there is already a perfectly good discussion about the title going on directly above this section, this RfC restating the issue appears to be an example of WP:BLUDGEON 24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just an attempt to separate out what seemed to be the policy question from the other stuff. Sorry if that was out of line. -- 202.124.75.21 (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and no - And frankly this entire article is a little silly. Vaguely reminiscent of Toilet paper orientation. Wouldn't mind a delete. NickCT (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and yes - having gotten over my initial dyspepsia at encountering another discussion on this topic, I have struck my above unhelpful comment. WP:COMMONNAME is the most relevant section for the second part, though other parts of WP:TITLE are also relevant. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and yes. The title accurately conveys the subject of the article (prohibitions on and reasons for not feeding wild and zoo animals) and I have difficulty coming up with an alternative that is as clear and concise. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and no. As was said in the section above, there is nothing wrong with article titles that consist of several words. In this case, however, the article title is rather awkward, as it is an imperative sentence. I am afraid I cannot offer a better alternative, though.  — daranz [ t ] 23:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and Yes. per David Eppstein and others. –Quiddity (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and Yes. No need to worry about notability, it's fine, you're simply informing the reader about the phrase; it's fairly commonly used in its own context. Yes, it seems concise and clear enough. --JustBerry (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and yes. Hi. First, in an article, it is the subject that should be notable; there is no specific notability mandate on title itself. Second, This article's title is good enough. Just take it easy. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misguided survey. The article is not (anymore) about the phrase "do not feed the animals", it is now about inappropriate human feeding of animals. Therefore the title is simply not correct for the article. -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Do not feed the animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Do not feed the animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Do not feed the animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Do_not_feed_the_animals&oldid=1206991458"