Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Article titles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Common names vs. peerage titles

For those interested in whether or not we should use common names as article titles, there's an RfC at WT:NCROY#British peers on whether we should use people's peerage titles when they are better (to various degrees) known by their ordinary names. Comments welcome there.--Kotniski (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity

When a subject or topic has a common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources

This is ambiguous; a subject can easily have two common names, and many do. For those subjects which do, the rest of the paragraph from which it comes is meaningless. It should say either single common name - as I think was intended - or most common name, which will in general come to the same thing. I don't really care which; I've tried one, and will be inserting the other (clumsy though it will be), since I seem to have attracted a stalker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, using an example. This should allow Yucca brevifolia to be moved to Joshua tree which is clearly evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources? It is moves like this that the wording needs to make clear that the policy is to use the common English-language name. Having multiple English language names like, Yucca palm, Tree yucca, and Palm tree yucca is not a reason to use a Latin name for the article. Which ever version does that should be acceptable. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend any change in policy. The full paragraph read:

When a subject or topic has a common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title. Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston massacre and Tea Pot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

This is not about Yucca brevifolia.
Nevertheless, as phrased, it can be quoted by both sides on that issue, because both of them are wielding a common English-language name.
The purpose of either alteration is to avoid that nonsense, and to refer the argument to WP:COMMONNAME, which should be the governing paragraph. Changes in that section are a different question altogether. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where does WP:COMMONNAME redirect? To Wikipedia:Article titles. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not anymore; it's a section redirect to Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that any form of the sentence is valid. We don't (unfortunately) have an overriding rule that when there's a common name we use it.--Kotniski (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's because our articles are not titled by sophisters and calculators imposing a preconceived scheme whether it fits a particular class of articles or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this problem exists. This paragraph is taken from the "Neutrality and article titles" section. Neither "Joshua tree" nor "Yucca brevifolia" are non-neutral/judgmental/offensive names, and therefore this section simply doesn't apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything that can be quoted out of context, will be; especially in the turbulent waters of title policy. Come and deal with WP:RM if you need more evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that (I spend far too much time at WP:External links not to be aware of that), but I think that the correct response is to tell people that they're quoting out of context, not to eliminate good and consensus-supported advice from the guideline. Would it be helpful to you to have a WP:OUTOFCONTEXT (perhaps to a new paragraph in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Adherence for that purpose? (Perhaps Fallacy of quoting out of context would be good enough?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really; anyone self-aware enough to be persuaded by such things is either going to be moved by reading "out-of-context" or is consciously lying; and the majority aren't. Better to be aware of the problem when writing policy and look at what each sentence says quoted in isolation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

While I don't mind writing a policy defensively, in practice I don't think that we can always defend against people who quote single phrases. For one thing, they may not be reading them on this page: They may be quoting an editor they respect who (mis)quoted (an old version of) a policy.

For example: WP:ATH #1 is actually subject to the caveats named at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, but I believe that most ATH-citing editors at AFD are unaware that those sentences even exist.

If you want to pound on the context, then this sentence could be expanded to say something like, "When considering whether an article title is neutral..." -- but I wouldn't change the actual advice, and even this context-reiterating clause can be (and will be) ignored by those who find the introductory clause inconvenient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency June 2010

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines" (Ralph Waldo Emerson).[1]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 17#Consistent, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 18#What is "consistency"?, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 19#Consistency wording, Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 20#Consistency 4 to 20 December 2009 and Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 21#Consistency December 20

See Talk:Zürich Airport#Requested move. We have people who do not want to move "Zürich Airport" to "Zurich Airport" even when it is shown that the official name of the Airport in English "Zurich Airport" and common English language usage in reliable sources runs at 8 to one in favour of "Zurich Airport" when a Google book search is used, because the name is "consistent" with "Zürich" yet anyone who knows the history behind the Wikipedia name of the city knows that it ended up at that name through a none consensus move and then there was no consensus to move it back (and no consensus for the current name). Also that survey was done years before the addition of reliable sources was added to the policy.

I suspect that if a move is proposed for Zurich some people will oppose a move whatever the evidence is to usage in reliable English language sources because it is "consistent" with articles like "Zürich Airport" (chicken and egg).

Therefore I propose (yet again) that we change the wording from

Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles.

to

Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

-- PBS (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me... I approve of consistency where appropriate... but I do not approve of consistency for its own sake, and definitely not when other criteria and factors indicate some other title would be best. Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer is just the same as it always is when this is proposed - we on this page might agree, but the community doesn't (see Victoria of the United Kingdom et al. ad nauseam). Consistency in article titles is something that editors value highly (and unfortunately, they value consistency of form between related articles more highly than consistency of approach throughout the encyclopedia). It's out of order to try to tweak a policy page in order to try and win an argument elsewhere - if practice is to be changed (and this page should reflect practice), then there should be a well-publicized RfC to show what the community really thinks.--Kotniski (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency was introduced into this page from a draft proposal which at the time supported the wording on flora. It was never part of this policy until last year and IMHO it should never have been introduced in the form it was. The wording I am proposing is much closer to how it has usually been used in the past. Promoting consistency to a level where it means people can ignore other criteria such as reliable sources is not in the interested of the project as it tends to be used to justify historically bad decisions by saying we don't care if the name is not the best it is content with other [incorrectly] named articles -- As is being done with the Zurich example. The reason for Victoria is not that it is consistent with other articles but that it is covered by the nobility guideline. If we were to take this to its logical conclusion and a change in the nobility guideline was made after an RfC on the issue agreed that country would be placed in parenthesis, this could never be implemented even though editors agreed it should be because all the articles on European monarchs were already in a certain format of "monarch numeral country" and to change any would be inconsistent. Clearly what is meant is "When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles" -- PBS (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's worth repeating the same arguments every time you bring this up, since you'll just bring it up again next month and pretend you've never heard the arguments before, but anyway, here goes: consistency may have been "introduced into this page", but it certainly wasn't introduced then as something new in Wikipedia practice - consistency has been taken into consideration in naming issues apparently right from the very early days, which is why we have these (IMO ridiculous) names for some monarch and ship articles, and why bands of editors once fought (and still do, to some extent) to keep the ",State" in as many US city titles as possible, and why the botanists use Latin names, and... oh but we've been through all this before, many many examples have been given of how consistency is used alongside the other criteria, usually perfectly acceptably; if we change the statement on this page we merely make this page worse (by making it describe our practices less accurately); it won't suddenly make people want to drop the umlaut from Zurich or give Queen Victoria her usual name.--Kotniski (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency has never been used for consistencies sake, it has always been subservient to other criteria. Please show me where in the archives of this page before the middle of last year where consistency was discussed as criteria. The rules on in both Nobles and Flora were devised originally to work around problems with non reliable sources, where in the development of either of those guidelines was consistency advanced in the guidelines as an explanation for the rules that were being used? -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, even if the word "consistency" didn't appear (which I find unlikely, but I can't really be bothered to look), the very fact that they were formulating rules (and then going on to enforce them with more or less disregard for common name or other principles) shows that the ideal of consistency was a goal they were pursuing. And as we can see from naming discussions today, it remains a goal that editors want to pursue.--Kotniski (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As I was one of "they", no it was always for reasons closer to the way I am describing it above. Take two examples. Richard the Lionheart and Alfred the Great, The word overwhelmingly in the sentence "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen," in Wikipedia:NC (names and titles) was to the best of my recollection introduced because of conversations on the talk page to work around the problem that clearly in reliable sources Alfred the Great is the common name, but in cases like Richard the Lionheart the reliable sources are split but tend to Richard I, but if one includes unreliable sources it would defiantly be Richard the Lionheart. If the policy then had included reliable sources, the whole thing could have been simplified (and should be now) but we did not have that concept in naming articles. Having consistency in this policy with its current wording actually undermines the intent of "names and titles" because it encourages some editors to want Harold II and other such names because of "consistency". Consistency as worded would probably have Alfred the Great moved to "Alfred I of England". It was never the intention of "names and titles" to promote consistency to the same level as sources when considering a name and I think my proposed wording is much closer to how most people understand constancy to be used in practice. -- PBS (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, so start an honest RfC and prove it (you have my vote for a start; but it's not up to us two to determine what people think on a major issue - whatever your intention might have been with your input to the royalty convention, the end result is that we have titles that have nothing to do with sources or conciseness or precision or anything else except stubborn "consistency", and they seem to be well supported).--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no RfC to add the current wording to this policy. It was added without any prior discussion, so I don't see the need for an RfC to modify it. -- PBS (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? There were acres of discussion about this (surely you remember?) A multitude of examples were presented to show how consistency motivates naming decisions alongside (and sometimes in the face of) the other criteria. Modifying the wording of the page to reflect actual practice (which we should do in good faith regardless of whether we agree with that practice) is a whole different matter than modifying it in the hope of changing practice, which is what you seem to be proposing.--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"added without any prior discussion". I know I got frustrated a few times because I felt like PBS wasn't listening to any voice except his own, but I never expected this. This beggars belief. Hesperian 11:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit on 7 September 2009 Where was the prior discussion? -- PBS (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what we used to have: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

That (from an edit by PBS) permits any subpage to impose any consistency it likes, overruling Recognizability altogether. The present text is much weaker, presenting consistency as only one of five desiderata. There may be a valid procedural objection to the weakening; but what PBS wants to do is weaken further, and much further than the text he approved of. There is no consensus whatever for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

PMA I am not sure what the edit for which you provided a link is supposed to show. However I made it clear at the time I was debating the flora guidelines, that in my opinion the wording you are quoting ("Except where ...") referred to this page the "naming conventions" not to the guidelines to the naming conventions. I was in favour of renaming this page 2 yeas ago preliminarily to clear up that issue. However that is not really the point of this conversation. What is more interesting is the Zürich circle -- where people justify naming pages and ignoring reliable sources for an internal consistency within Wikipedia, even if the first article used to justify the circle was named without consideration for the article titles policy, or was named using a old consensus of what the policy was. The alteration to the wording that I am suggesting does not remove the use of consistency from this policy but a change of wording to reflect best practice. -- PBS (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

05:24, 24 June 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (→Deciding an article title: The edit before this makes no sense if internal consistency is pitched at the same level as verifiability) (undo)
15:05, 24 June 2010 Pmanderson (Verifiability is WP:V. No consensus for this revision.)

PMA neither is there ever been consensus for the current wording. So perhaps you should engage here on the talk page about how we can fix the wording. Can you show me one case were a person has suggested that a name be used because it is consistent with another article name, where that has not been challenged if it is not the name used in reliable sources? Generally consistency is only a factor for which there is a broad consensus if "other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice". -- PBS (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the royals and nobles. Victoria of the United Kingdom, whatever we call Lord Byron and Lord Palmerston and so on - these names satisfy absolutely none of the criteria except an alleged "consistency". The other criteria do indicate an obvious choice; the clique in charge rejects that choice on the grounds of consistency. If we're going to tell them that what they're doing is against policy, we'll have to be able to show them that the policy really represents the consensus of the community, and hasn't just been snuck in.--Kotniski (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But the point is are there any cases were there is a consensus that consistency trumps reliable sources? Yes some people argue that it does in some cases, but that does not mean that there is a consensus that it should, in cases like Lord Palmerston there are always people that argue that consistency (with other titles) should not trump reliable sources. Indeed until it was introduced here last year the general argument was that one decision on naming was not binding on the name of other articles. So my argument is that the current wording does not represent a consensus, and that my alternative is much closer to how consistency is used in debates. -- PBS (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your inconsistency on these two matters is breathtaking. Lord Palmerston clearly wins hands down on all the other criteria except consistency - so it is exactly the situation we're discussing, where the other criteria indicate an obvious choice, and therefore according to your view, consistency should not play a role, and that title should be chosen. And yet you go over to the nobility guideline and oppose the use of such titles as Lord Palmerston. I just don't understand what's going on in your mind.--Kotniski (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you posted this before my reply on that page @ 07:03, 30 June 2010 clearing up this misunderstanding. -- PBS (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Telugu and other South Asian names

We already have conventions that, with various East Asian cultures which put somebody's family name first, e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Korean, we maintain this order. However, with Hungarian names, which also put the family name first, we change this to Western name order. There has been persistent low-level edit warring with Koneru Humpy, a leading Telugu chess player. It seems that in her native Telugu culture the family name comes first, my inclination is to respect this. However there are many other Telugu people with biographies, I don't know what convention they are normally following, and I also don't know if this could be an issue with other South Asian cultures. PatGallacher (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It would help if the article (whatever it is called) mentioned the issue, and said which is the family name. Beyond that, which order do reliable sources like FIDE and its rivals use? (And how do the sources deal with, say, Japanese names?)

Hungarian is, I think, a special case. English writes Bela Bartok; Bartok Bela is incomplete translation - and I believe so also for chess players.

If sources are dead evenly divided, I might choose the Western order, for comprehensibility, but I doubt they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Addendum

Currently, the manual of style for medical articles states that the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) must be used as the title for all drug pages. (Ex. Paracetamol, instead of Tylenol) This naming scheme is developed by the World Health Organization, and is internationally accepted. In fact, most Wikipedia articles already use it, but there are a few that don't, and it is important, for thecredibility of Wikipedia that they do, so that they may conform to international standards of naming. There is a proposal over at the Village Pump regarding this, I have left this so that those interested in this policy could find it. Ronk01 talk, 14:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's at WP:Village pump (idea lab), should anyone be looking for it. (Now why did that page ever get created...) --Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive & segmented article titles

The result of the debate was: proposal rejected.. Closed by erachima.

The following discussion 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.

Following on from the discussion in the section "Exceptional article titles" (above), I have rewritten the proposal to broaden its scope and cover several related issues.

Descriptive & segmented article titles

Article titles can sometimes be controversial because of negative connotations, often related to social, political or historical disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in determining what is a true, proper article title. What this encyclopedia does is to use the reliable, third-party sources as a guide to selecting the most ideal and least judgemental title.

Descriptive or segmented article titles should not be used as a means of creating stand-alone articles to resolve editorial disputes, because if an article title is not commonly used or is likely to be challenged, it is unlikely to be recognized or accepted as being a topic in in its own right.

The use of descriptive or segmented titles should prompt editors to examine the sources that support their use if the title is likely to be challenged because:

it has not covered directly or in detail by reliable, third party sources;
it has been made up one day or is a neologisms;
it is one-sided, embarrassing, controversial, or contains contentious labels;
it incorporate claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Wikipedia requires high-quality sources that address the article topic directly and in detail. If high-quality sources sources are not available, the article topic should not used not the article topic be included in Wikipedia as a standalone article. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Where descriptive or segmented article titles are used, choose a title that does not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. For example, the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law that have not yet been proven in a court of law.

See Wikipedia:Words to watch for further advice on potentially judgmental terminology.

The objective of the proposal is to address the ongoing issue of descriptive titles. Not all titles are controversial in nature, but what they have in common is that they are titles that attempt to describe their subject matter, whereas most articles are described and defined by article content, rather than their article title. Some examples of descriptive article titles that may illustrate this issue are as follows:

Generally speaking, these article titles are being used to describe "meta-topics", i.e. topics about topics, rather than specific sub-topics described in WP:SUMMARY. In theory, there should not be a problem with creating such articles based on these titles, provided that suitable sources can be found to justify their inclusion in Wikipedia as distinct and identifiable topics in their own right. In practice, the creation of such articles and the use of these titles is frought with difficulty: since coverage of most topics is about the topic itself, coverage about a "meta-topic" is likely to be rare, if it exists at all.

Hence this proposal. Following the precedent set by WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia's policy on descriptive titles should be based on high quality sources that provide reasonable evidence that the article title can be externally validated, not just by mentions in passing, but in terms of soruces which address the article topic directly and in detail. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a problem that this proposal would help solve?--Kotniski (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is intended to address three issues:

Should topics defined or described by descriptive titles have their own article?
If so, should the title pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on its subject matter?
Which descriptive title should be used if there are plausible variants?

I think these three questions can be appled to all descriptive titles, of which the existence of "Criticism of XYZ" is one variant which is currently the subject of an RFC. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but can you give a specific example, to make it clearer what you're trying to get at? An actual article title which might be affected by this? --Kotniski (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed the article Criticism of Judaism at length in the discussion about "Criticism of foo" type articles. Perhaps you could use this as your starting point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should not have Criticism articles; but the solution is to merge or delete them, not to rename them. So I doubt this page can do much other than link to wherever we say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, what do you mean by "segmented" names? They're not discussed on this page; they're not defined in this proposal. Let's have examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The criticism article is a redirect. The 'outline' ones are an attempt to put a structure onto wikipedia. The main one in that list I would have problems with is 'Introduction to evolution' because that is not a topic. Every article should be an introduction at the appropriate level and if there is a complicated bit to evolution thats the bit that could have a qualifier describing its area. Dmcq (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This proposal seems aimed at preventing such articles from being made because one cannot write a valid title for the article. This is not an appropriate policy page for this. I do agree that article titles of subjects which are common sense groupings of several smaller topics or which are spinouts of sections of larger topics need to be carefully chosen for avoiding biases, but just because it's difficult to title them right is not a reason to not have them. If the article is something like "X of Y" or "Y X" where "Y" is a notable topic, and "X" would be a logical section within that topic, then there is zero problems with articles named in this style. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Topic and title are related. Both require sourcing. If there is a dispute, and one side of that dispute points out an absence of sourcing for the title or the topic of the article, that should be the end of that article. Example: there is an article called Criticism of Judaism. The title is obviously unsourced. That sequence of three words is mentioned in passing. But no attempt is made (in any source) to define it in any way. Thus it is not established in any way. Its parameters are unknown. Yet, the topic can be guessed at. Thus, the editors divide up into groups supporting a different notion of what should be considered as included under that title. No guidance in this dispute is provided by sources, because not one source exists suggesting that the topic has any particular meaning. My suggestion is that the article is disqualified on the basis of one group of editors objecting to there being an article under that title, because no source supports that title. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Titles don't always need sourcing. They need to be clear, common language that is an accurate title for the content within, but doesn't have to be sourced, because we as WPians have the ability to use common sense to group highly-connected, related topics into a larger overarching topic that is obvious in intent, particularly in the case if it would have been derived from a spinout article of a larger topic. That said, I am all for the requirement that if a title contains a peacock/weasel word, then there needs to be sources to affirm that topic is titled that way (eg Lewinsky scandal, any "-gate" articles post Watergate). If you can't source the connection of a peacock/weasel word to a topic, then you need to remove that word. I've suggested this in connection with the "Criticism of X" articles, as "criticism" is a weasel-like word, and instead suggested "Critical opinion" or the like, which removes the bias of the weasel word. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And what is included under "Critical opinion…"? Do editors decide what to include and what to exclude? Bus stop (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Criticism of Judaism is that the topic isn't sourced. The topic of Criticism of Christianity is sourced but I'd prefer a different title. How about using that instead of mixing up problems? Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Masem — I don't think Wikipedia should rely on "common sense." When there are disagreements the important thing is to have recourse to sources. You make reference to "highly-connected, related topics." There is considerable difference of opinion on what is included in that. You said, "particularly in the case if it would have been derived from a spinout article of a larger topic." I think that would be the Judaism article. But that article does not shed light on what would be included under the rubric of "criticism of Judaism." How could it? No source suggests a meaning for such a phrase. That phrase is common English. It is used in many settings in many ways. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Some people disagree with you regarding common sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — I think common sense works fine when there is a degree of agreement. But ultimately sources are what matters. The link you provided to common sense is a subset of Ignore all rules. I don't think most Wikipedians rely heavily on that policy. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We are developing a work that is driven by consensus and subjective opinion, not objective measures. The latter would be great and cut 99% of the nonsense that happens in the course of editing, but that's not going to happen as long as WP is a volunteer project that any can edit. Common sense needs to be applied , in this case, the grouping topics that are very near to a central point. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Masem — That is a compromise of Wikipedia principles and standards. In the event that a miracle occurred and consensus was arrived at, what would the reader have — the original research that represented the views of the editors of Wikipedia? What happened to the principle of verifiability, and reliance on reliable sources? Even NPOV is not trumped by consensus. I find at WP:NPOV: "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." And what is this all for? So that we can have an article on "Criticism of Judaism"? There already exists a Judaism article. And there already exists articles (freestanding articles) on every suggested subtopic for the "criticism of Judaism" article. Are we trying to spoon feed "criticism of Judaism" to the reader? Any reader can scan the topics at the Judaism article. They can click on a topic and read it. If there is negative information to report, it will be found within a proper context. Are we trying to take negative information out of a proper context? Additionally, at WP:Reliable Sources, I find: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." These are fundamental policies. Why would we opt to WP:Ignore all rules? Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Because at the end of the day, we're trying to make a comprehensive encyclopedia to help the reader understand a topic, and organizing that material in the best way to fit our WP:SIZE concerns.

It is clear that Judaism is a huge subject, unable to be confined to 100k per WP:SIZE. So we use WP:Summary style to determine best how to group and combine information about Judaism into logical, comprehensive sections, while making sure page 1, Judaism is an overview of the topic. But from that point on, there is minimal advice from policy and guidelines on how to organize that information in the subsequent pages. Since "criticism" (or an equivalent phrase) would be a logical section of the larger topic's article should it be there, editors have decided that "Criticism of Judaism" would be the best way to group all the critical opinions of the religion into a single area instead of spreading them around several smaller articles. There is nothing in policy that prevents that type of organization, save for the concern elsewhere about the page being used as a coatrack, which I've outlined previously as a serious concern but one we can't shy away from. Is there a different way to organize the information? Sure, as you've suggested on each subtopic of Judaism that is called out in the larger article. But perhaps the editors felt this not to be the best way to present the whole of the Judaism topic.

We have to think what makes common sense at the larger level when looking at a whole topic that spans many pages. If WP was paper or allowed for an infinite amount of content on a single page, Judaism would be quite long, and would likely contain within the paper or infinite page a section on criticism that resembles our current CoJ page; I am pretty sure no one would have any problems if this were the case if the Criticism section were contained completely within the Judaism page based on the input I've seen. Thus, by common sense, it seems fairly obvious when we're forced to acknowledge SIZE that splitting of the CoJ article would be one of the first steps to be done. Of course, again, there's other ways that the infinitely-long page could be ordered, but how that is done is up to the consensus of the editors working on the page and the topic.

The same concept goes for nearly every topic listed above; they would be sections in an infinitely long article but are broken out by SIZE and summary style. Their titles reflect that nature. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Masem — There are no reliable sources for "criticism of Judaism." Should we just concoct whatever we think such an article should look like? Bus stop (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We have numerous reliable sources that say there is critical opinion of elements of Judaism, possible as a whole too, thus a logical grouping of all those sources is "Criticism of Judaism" because it is not a novel term. (Of course, I'm still standing by my objection to using "Criticism" over something like "Critical opinion" to avoid implicit bias, and the issues of coatracking) Article titles can be defined by WPians as long they accurately describe the contents of the article. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And I agree, FWIW, that something like Critical Analysis or Critical reception would be better, but we did not achieve consensus on that point. I think it will be very hard to achieve much consensus, as tempers flared significantly during the AFD. Admittedly, care will have to be taken to avoid POV issues and to find appropriate sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — "Tempers flared"? I wasn't aware of this. But please tell me about this from your perspective. Bus stop (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's obvious, although editors remained civil. Of course, maintaining civility on a non-contentious issue is a five pound test. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Note to self, throw Criticism of Judaism in the air if I want to disappear from view ;-) Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please... let's not make this about any particular article (we can mention them as examples... but we should not focus on specific articles). The issue here is using terms like "Criticism of..." in an article title. I agree we need to caution editors about using such terms in an article title. I agree that such titles should be discouraged, as they are inherently POV and limit the article to only negative information about the topic. I also agree that such titles should be allowed in limited circumstances (if the negative terminology can be substantiated through use in reliable sources). Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree in principle?

As Blueboar has said, I think caution is needed when a descriptive title is used, because, lets face it, they are a form of title that are most likely to be challenged. Having said that, lets say (for the time being) that such titles could or can be justified. The proposal above suggest that descriptive titles will work where there are high quality sources to support them. Is this a principle that we can agree on? If not why? And lastly, is there an alternative in terms of obtaining some form of external validation that a particular descriptive article title is the right/best/least judgemental title? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If a title falls natural out from sources, that makes sense. And I support a requirement that for a title that includes peacock/weasel words that sources must refer to the topic in that way (eg, WPians should not be the ones apply that label). But, starting from the presumption that the article context is appropriate as a single article but that there is no source that simply falls out from courses, a descriptive, unbiased titling is completely acceptable (eg of the 6 example titles presented above, only two: "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly" and "Beginning of pregnancy controversy", should really be sourcable or otherwise de-biased, the other 4 are all legit descriptive titles). --MASEM (t) 13:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

To a certain extent, the "non-neutral but common names" section of the policy already addresses this, but I guess the question is: what do we mean by common? Some have taken it as a simple issue of whether it has ever been used before anywhere or whether it's so common that it's "not likely to be challenged" as WP:V puts it. For titles, as far as I'm concerned, neutrality is far more important than verifiability, and we should only be using non-neutral titles as an absolute last resort when there is no reasonable alternative and multiple neutral options have been evaluated and discarded. SDY (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is a last resort for a descriptive title.... the only hesitation I have is when and if it can be established that the word "Criticism" (or other biased term) is used as part of the common "Proper Name" for the topic (highly unlikely in this case).

In other words... if a significant majority of reliable sources talk about the topic using the phrases "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly" or the "Beginning of pregnancy controversy", then these biased titles are justifiable because they are accepted proper names. If not, they should be either renamed or re-subsumed into the main article. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, but for different reasons: "X controversy" is only biased if the "controversy" is a invention of a few theorists who want their crank idea to be treated as an equal alternative to accepted usage; if so (for example, writing hollow earth controversy about John Cleves Symmes, Jr.), the article should not exist, under any title. If there is a real controversy (which can be shown, for example, by reliable sources using the phrase), then there is no NPOV problem with the title.

Such an article and title may be undesirable on other grounds (for example, being an unfixable attractor of unsourced or fringe opinions); but is that best covered here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Best not covered here (but perhaps mentioned in passing). Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson is right: descriptive titles can attract partisan or biased coverage, that is why high quality sources are needed that either define the topic or provide focus on its subject matter. For instance, "History of XYZ" is often a bona fide topic, provided it can be shown that there are sources that, say, discuss the topic directly and in detail, perhaps in terms of its origins, development and scope, such as the History of economic thought. There are mainstream topics which have descriptive titles, for sure, but what marks them out are high quality sources that demonstrate they are is studied and written about in the real world (whereas Criticism of economics/Criticism of economic thought is not). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question: I think we do have agreement in principal. "Criticism of X" is generally a flawed title (unless substantiated). Such a title is a red flag that the article may be a POV fork and in most case should be renamed to something more neutral such as "Critical analysis of X" or "Views about X" (which would cover both positive and negative commentary on the subject). Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So... let's work on how to word this in the policy. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we just need to be clear we are talking about "descriptive titles that include words to watch", as I'm not yet seeing agreement on "descriptive titles" in general. The specific example of "Criticism of X" clearly falls into one that I think we agree is an issue if no sources back up that term. Taking that into account, language such as "Descriptive article titles should not include words to watch, and neutral, unbiased language should be used instead. Descriptive titles may include these words only if the topic is exclusively referred to by that name in numerous reliable sources, such as Watergate scandal." --MASEM (t) 13:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Titles relate to topics. Descriptive titles should not be permitted when there is a significant question over for instance the notability of a topic. Descriptive titles should only be allowable in instances in which the topic of the article is clearly not in violation of the several fundamental principles that would rule out the creating of an article on that topic. Language to that effect should be included in any policy we are trying to draw up on this. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not about notability of topics. We need to language to start from the presumption the topic the title describes meets WP's inclusion guidelines of which notability is one factor. This is the wrong venue to discuss if we should have these articles at all. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not possible to regard titles and topics in isolation. We see from experience that "descriptive titles" invariably find application in synthesized topics. Topics that do not find readily available sources also need titles. These are in all cases going to be "descriptive titles." I am accepting of the notion that "descriptive titles" are sometimes permissible. But any language describing their use has to distinguish between their proper and improper application. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Synthesized topics are not always bad as some are clearly accepted. They can go bad, but that's no reason to prevent them; to do otherwise is burying one's head in the sand for fear of the problems dealing with these articles. And thus, yes, titles can be talked about in isolation of the topic and its appropriateness to WP. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Reliable Sources Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In concept I agree with Masem... but I really think we should avoid linking to WP:Words to watch. That page can easily be abused in naming conflicts... It is far too easy for editors who are involved in a naming dispute to improperly slip a word that they dislike to the list, and (on the other side) for people to Wikilawyer that, because a word doesn't appear on the list, it must be allowed. I think we want to express general disapproval of biased descriptive titles than a narrow ban on specific words. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

True, people will argue left-right about a specific word not being listed or the like. I think we should give advice on some of the more common words that are ultimately poor, like "scandal", "controversy", "criticism", and how they can be replaced when necessary. But the same idea applies - if those words are actually used exclusively to describe the topic by publications, then its appropriate, but otherwise needs defanging. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The reliance on sources is fundamental to Wikipedia. You can't have an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" unless there is a strict requirement that material adhere closely to sources. This has applicability in the topics that Wikipedia can have articles on. We can't have articles created willy nilly because an editor gets it in his head that a personal idea constitutes a topic for an article. Sources must confirm that topic as a real topic that has received recognition in the world external to Wikipedia. Those sources, if they exist, would probably provide guidance in the selecting of a title for that article. If those sources existed, and they were found lacking in any way, then "descriptive titles" could make up for any such shortcomings. But "descriptive titles" must first receive clearance in the form of reliable sources supporting the existence of that topic. If we are formulating language about this we should include the caution that "descriptive titles" are not a substitute for a topic that fails basic article creation requirements, especially sources confirming the existence of the topic being written about as a real topic and that sources support it as such. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I guess I have a strong preference for neutral descriptive titles over names used by sources, especially for clear content forks that "belong" in a main article but can't fit there due to length concerns. Non-neutral and other questionable names should only be used when it is an obvious common name, not because it can be verified in a source. SDY (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we have three issues here: 1) negative Proper Name titles that are supported directly by reliable sources. 2) negative descriptive titles that are supported indirectly by reliable sources. 3) negative descriptive titles that are not supported by reliable sources. My take on these three issues is as follows:

1) Proper Names should be preferred if and when substantiated, even if they are negative. We should not invent our own alternative title when the sources have agreed that the subject/topic should be called by a particular name. Boston massacre is the example.

2) Negative descriptive titles that can be substantiated indirectly through reference to reliable sources should be renamed with neutral wording. (an example would be an incident that is described as being "a massacre" ... but is not routinely named "The X Massacre". Instead of creating the negative descriptive titles "X massacre" or "massacre of X", we should use something more neutral... such as "X incident")

3) Negative descriptive titles that can not be substantiated either directly or indirectly by the sources should be subsumed into other articles (such as the article on the history of the region), or deleted outright. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think these are precisely the issues that this proposal addresses. In the case that SDY highlights, it is clear that editors are choosing titles that are neutral, as titles such as Attorneygate and Climategate appear to have been dropped, perhaps on the grounds that the quality of sources are not high enough to justify them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 03:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Only by fiat of editorial consensus do "descriptive titles" create topics for articles. The success of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" rests on the primary importance of sources. The scope of a topic should already have an existence external to Wiki before an article is created on it. "Descriptive titles" legitimize topics that do not have sources supporting specifically that topic. They are often abused because they are often presenting a viewpoint that is favored by some and objected to by others. That viewpoint is often not correctable within the article. I think that an article given a "descriptive title" has an unacceptably high likelihood of being an article that is in violation of WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A major problem is with names used by advocacy groups for one side or another of a political debate. See Terrorism#Pejorative use, and in denialism#Prescriptive and polemic for example of adjectives where this is a problem. If a title is created using these words (and many other similar words), they frame the debate in the article because they capture the first sentence of the introduction to the article.

In the case of the Holocaust, the term Holocaust denial has become a valid topic because people have done research how and why some people despite overwhelming historical evidence deny that the Holocaust took place.

The problem is that this is taken over to other subjects where although it may be true that a majority of scholars have agreed a genocide has occurred, there is nowhere near the same level of academic and political agreement that the events that occurred were a genocide. If an article is created with names like "ABC Genocide denial" or "ABC Genocide reparations" then it automatically frames the debate making the assumption that there was a genocide to be denied or compensated and at a practical level these articles tend to survive AfDs because those with an interest in the events, who think it was a genocide, tend show up and express an opinion in favour of the article that even if there is no consensus to keep the article, there is not a consensus to delete it.

In the case of genocide denial, because of the rhetoric trick that the word denial allows advocacy sources to use, it is always possible to find sources containing the claim that Ayz is denying the Abc Genocide, but it tells us little other than the person making the statement thinks that there is a genocide to be denied. It also makes writing a balanced NPOV article very difficult when there are two article one called "ABC Genocide denial" and another called "ABC Genocide recognition" as we have in the case of the Armenian Genocide because into which article does one put the view held by the British government that the massacres occurred but were crimes against humanity and not technically a genocide (see this debate).

Another example is the term "terror bombing" as an alternative for "strategic bombing". We and our allies bomb legitimate strategic targets they and their allies terror bomb our populations. "Terror bombing" usage in sources is usually not about the term, but about the raids for which the term is a description. If one does a Google Book search on "Terror bombing" over 9,000 results are returned, but does that make it a legitimate article fork from an article on "strategic bombing"? The problem is that even if these articles such as this start out as an academic survey on how the term came into existence, developed and is used, very quickly well meaning editors add information to the articles that turn them into little more than list of the usage of the term. In themselves these lists may be sourced, but in the case of terror bombing they become a subset of all strategic bombing raids that someone at some time in a book or an article has called a terror bombing raid.

The naming of articles for both descriptive and proper names is going to be a problem for many political and national issues and I have yet to see any easy solution that can be implemented given the structure of current Wikipedia policy and procedural methods available to editors. -- PBS (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Example: Climategate

I participated in the discussion regarding Climategate and was one of several editors who proposed and supported the accepted compromise. But it should not be used as an example of how to follow policy. The climate change articles are beset by POV-pushers from both sides of the climate change divide and is currently the subject of an ArbCom case. The compromise was the only way to get both sides to agree. I did not participate in the Attorneygate discussion but my research regarding the term did not indicate that its usage was as wide-spread as Climategate's so I don't think you can compare the two as equal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the talk archives, it seems to me that this consensus was reached via a discussion of the sources for the article title. I suspect this is a good example to discuss because the discussions are well documented. Its clear that one party would wish to highlight the sensationalist title, while the other would want to downplay this. Only a close examination of the sources could determine the best title in terms of high quality sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 04:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a good example. Yes, one party would wish to highlight the sensationalist title, while the other faction would want to downplay this title. Either way, it is in no way indicative of what we should have done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are right, how was disagreement about the title settled (if only temporarily) without reference to the sources? How else could some sort of choice be made? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing was disregarded by both sides. Compromise was only achieved after Jimbo personally intervened. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look at RFC and it seems to me that sourcing was the deciding factor, by looking at what the sources where actually discussing. The article was moved to Climatic Research Unit email controversy because it was the emails that became the center of commentators' attention, as it was their content that was notable, rather than the name Climategate or the fact that computer hacking was involved. Now this decision may be overturned, but I would suggest it would require high quality sources to make this happen. My conclusions are that we have to make a distinction between an article title that directly identifies an article topic in its totality, and an article label that can be applied to only a selection of aspects or characteristics about an article topic.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if you're curious about sourcing in that case, you might want to look at this A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Climategate/Climatic Research Unit email controversy is a poor choice for an example. As the endless (and on going) debates over what to title that article demonstrate, it is a boarder-line case... too boarder-line to be a good example. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On what basis do you make such a sweeping generalisation? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On the basis that I think it is a poor example. The title was a matter of extended debate, with advocates on both sides arguing endlessly and pushing their preferred title to support their view on the underlying topic. I think examples on policy pages should be clear cut and somewhat obvious, so there is no doubt in the reader's mind as to what we are trying to say. If we used the Climategate/Climatic Research Unit email controversy article as an example, the reader would need to sift through multiple pages of debate to understand why the debate ended the way it did (and that assumes the debate did end... which is far from certain with this particular article). Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If a topic is the subject of extended debate, then surely that makes it the perfect example? I think Blueboar is right to be looking for clear cut answers, but they are not going to handed to him on a plate. Of course there are advocates on both sides; one of the key reasons we are having this discussion is that descriptive titles are most likely to be the subject partisan disputes in which editorial opinions will be challenged. I have done a bit of sifting for him: the turning point in the discussion seems to have been Jimbo's comments about "The problem with the current title". A compromise was found a few threads after. I think it still possible to draw conclusions that are useful to us from just a few threads. In my own case, I conclude that there is an important difference between article titles (dealt with by this guideline) and article labels (dealt with at WP:LABEL). The proposal I have tabled above helps to distinguish between the two. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be a good example unless you expect Jimbo Wales to get personally involved in every article title dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

At least he went with a compromise even though he seemed to be wrongly prejudging the researchers. I think that shows he supports a neutral title if the 'right' one would stop development of the article. A case of IAR or a general principle? Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is a good or bad example of a descriptive article title, it is certainly an interesting case because Jimbo expressed an opinion in the debate, but his views were not followed slavishly. I am not saying that the choice of article title is necessarily the best one, but the arguments put up by both sides seem to me to be based on the quality of the coverage and the reliability sources. In the light of what I have read of the debate, I would like to table an amendment to the proposal at the very start of this thread: The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Wikipedia requires high-quality coverage from reliable sources that address the article topic directly and in detail. There is clearly more to choosing an article title based on whether a particular term is used or by one or more sources; clearly the participants of the discussion looked at what the coverage from those sources was actually addressing in order to identify an article title that was not a partisan label.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Descriptive & segmented article titles

The following amendement to Wikipedia:Article titles which would result in the replacement of the section "Descriptive titles". The proposal is intended to address such article titles such as Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova which give rise three questions:

Should topics defined or described by descriptive titles have their own article?
If so, should the title pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on its subject matter?
Which descriptive title should be used if there are plausible variants?

Simply put, the use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Wikipedia requires high-quality coverage that address the article topic directly and in detail. Comments and suggestions in relation to the proposal would be most welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive & segmented article titles

Article titles can sometimes be controversial because of negative connotations, often related to social, political or historical disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in determining what is a true, proper article title. What this encyclopedia does is to use the reliable, third-party sources as a guide to selecting the most ideal and least judgemental title.

Descriptive or segmented article titles should not be used as a means of creating stand-alone articles to resolve editorial disputes, because if an article title is not commonly used or is likely to be challenged, it is unlikely to be recognized or accepted as being a topic in in its own right.

The use of descriptive or segmented titles should prompt editors to examine the sources that support their use if the title is likely to be challenged because:

it has not covered directly or in detail by reliable, third party sources;
it has been made up on day or is a neologisms;
it is one-sided, embarrassing, controversial, or contains contentious labels;
it incorporate claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Wikipedia requires high-quality coverage that address the article topic directly and in detail. If high-quality sources sources are not available, the article topic should not used not the article topic be included in Wikipedia as a standalone article. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Where descriptive or segmented article titles are used, choose a title that does not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. For example, the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law that have not yet been proven in a court of law.

See Wikipedia:Words to watch for further advice on potentially judgmental terminology.

Comment An RFC should in my opinion be a H2 Not an H3 section heading. I have no idea what "Descriptive & segmented article titles" is meant to mean, for example how does it relate to the naming of the articles "military use of children" and Lithuanian Civil War (1431–1435) -- PBS (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not segment this comment off. Instead fix the headings! -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC Discussion

As proposer, I can see some useful guidance coming out of this proposal. Periodically, article such as Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova appear that use titles that are controversial for two reasons:

The use Contentious labels in the article titles, which may not be the title which would used by all sources that deal with the topic;
They make it difficult to write about the subject matter of the article in a balance way;
The subject matter is ill defined, so that it is difficult to determine which coverage is relevant to the subject matter.

It seems to me the only way to resolve these issues is to take a step back, and see if there is any high-quality coverage that address the article topic directly and in detail. If there is, then the article title can be validated by external sources, not editorial opinion. If not, then perhaps a merger, redirect or deletion would be better than continuing to edit an article which fails many of Wikipedia's content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The big problem is that this is a policy not a guideline. One can stick some guidance into a policy but it tends to get removed again as the policy is pared to its essentials of what everyone should normally do rather than worries that one should be careful about. Dmcq (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq - talking about article titles is appropriate at the policy level, but not about the inclusion of articles that can only be named via descriptive titles (that's a notability aspect and clearly guideline material). If we strictly focused on what type of language should be avoided in descriptive titles, and/or the requirement that titles containing biasing words be either appropriately sourced to show that that is how the topic is considered, or changed to unbiased terms otherwise, then we have something that works at the policy level. Everything else beyond that is a guideline and has strong consensus-based considerations of inclusion. I would suggest based on a lot of other things that we made need a notability guideline on what best can be called "synthesized topics" - topics not explicitly spelled out in sources but clearly can be assembled in a non-biased, non-original research manner - to determine when such topics are appropriate. (I don't like the word "synthesis" for that, because it implies negative synthesis we don't allow, but it is the best I can think of presently) --MASEM (t) 15:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That thinking is fine, but the concept of whether we should have articles requiring descriptive titles should not be buried on a policy page about titles. It is, effectively, an inclusion guideline that doesn't yet exist anywhere else and probably an area that's been begging for this (Between lists, summary-style spinouts, and such descriptive topics) that needs the careful balance between synthesis and completeness. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying it would be better to have an article called Linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova? I agree... but that title is also descriptive. Is the real issue that articles called "Controversy over X" or "Criticism of X" should usually be merged into articles called simply "X"? Yaris678 (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If so, then this problem should be addressed over at WP:N, not here at the page whose sole purpose is "What goes in the URL for this page?" (i.e., specifically not "What kinds of subjects shall Wikipedia have separate pages about?"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that the creators of the article Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova would claim that there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. The issue is article title: does the coverage support this choice of title? I have not looked at the sources myself, but I would have thought finding a defintion for a topic with such a highly descriptive article title would be a remote possibility. The issue is not finding coverage that would ordinarily provide evidence of notability for a particular topic (in this case Moldovan language), but whether that coverage supports the descriptive article title to describe that topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive titles facilitate articles that transgress basic wiki policy. Every article that does not have sources to support a specific premise for an article requires a descriptive title. You can't have an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" if you have people creating articles willy-nilly. Descriptive titles are in violation of basic wiki policy. The condoning of them represents the acceptance of lower quality from a Wikipedia point of view. Information is presented in a certain way on Wikipedia. Eschewing descriptive titles has nothing to do with keeping information out of Wikipedia. It has everything to do with the organizing principle of this particular encyclopedia. It has to be understood that every information source has its strengths and its weaknesses and its peculiarities. The endorsement of descriptive titles grows out of trying to make wiki do what it is not supposed to do. The strength of Wikipedia is its reliance on sources coupled with its broad base of support. But a multitude of Wikipedians must be held accountable to a close adherence to sources. Fundamentally, descriptive titles are a violation of Wikipedia policy. It is not hard, for instance, to see descriptive titles as in violation of original research. The article that flows from such a descriptive title is also undefined. Its parameters are nonexistent, at least not as concerns a definition that can be looked to in sources. Lacking a definition, editors endlessly bicker about the scope of the article. Bus stop (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You have no access to a 'basic policy' or something fundamental which overrides the policy agreed by consensus and which describes what people do. Anyway all titles are descriptive - they describe the topic. The title is not the topic, it is a description of the topic. The topic is what needs notability. Dmcq (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Whenever there are instances of disagreement as to what titles should be there is inevitably, and there should be, discussion of sources. There is no escaping it — Wikipedia is fundamentally about sources. When editors present an argument to support a preferred title they inevitably do so with reference to sources. That is the Wikipedia way. Recourse to sources is inevitable, even when defending one's personal preference in title. Wikipedia's strength is close adherence to sources and Wikipedia's weakness is lax enforcement of the fundamental policies that require close adherence to sources. Whenever a topic is "concocted," a descriptive title is used. A concocted topic is one which does not have sources specifically referring to it. A lax orientation to "descriptive titles" only makes it more likely that poorly-sourced material will find its way into the encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying many made up topics have descriptive titles does not mean that the descriptive titles are all of made up topics. It is a warning flag, that's all. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Since existing policies deal with poorly-sourced material and non-neutral points of view already, what problem will making a policy or guideline regarding descriptive titles solve? And what guideline, policy or reliable source defines which titles are descriptive and which are not? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Although content policies already deal with poorly-sourced material and non-neutral points of view already, they they are directed towards the content of articles, not titles, and are based on the implicit assumption that the article title matches the subject matter in everyway. For Descriptive article titles, the opposite is true: the scope of the article is restricted such that the content must match the title. The best definition I can offer is that a descriptive article titles are given to "meta-topics", i.e. topics that are about topics, as opposed to being a "sub-topics" i.e. topics within topics.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It means anything which is described rather than named. To make up a few title, I don't know if these exists, Manufacture of pulley blocks, Steps to sainthhood, Jungs early life, Representations of the fourth dimension, Clock mechanisms, anything like that. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is silly to say that titles are distinctly different from articles. I believe it is correct that article titles should not require sources. But descriptive titles are like a band-aid on an article that shouldn't be written in the first place. Descriptive titles go hand-in-hand with articles on topics that do not have sources delineating the scope of the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding articles that shouldn't exist, if the problem is that the article should not exist in the first place, why not deal with that problem directly, instead of putting up a band-aid of a policy or guideline? And it seems to me that unless there's a strict definition of what descriptive title is, the policy will just lead to endless discussions about which titles fall under the policy guidelines, and which do not, followed by lots of creative renaming of article titles. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any descriptive titles. Descriptive titles are a loophole in wikipedia law. Titles should relate to what articles are about. If it is not known what an article is about, that is a good indication that an article shouldn't exist. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia law"? You do realize that everything is guided by consensus, and policy and guidelines are only there to establish what the norms are?

To Nuujinn's point, I strong agree that numerous discussions over the last year(s) have pointed to a need to determine when it is appropriate OR/synthesis to create an article on a topic that may not be explicitly be covered by sources but clearly falls out when putting all the sources together. I'm drafting up something on this right now. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

At WP:NPOV I find, "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." I also find, "This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." I think that basic Wikipedia policy is "non-negotiable." Perhaps I spoke too quickly when I made a reference to "wikipedia law." I would retract that. But what I was trying to reference is fundamental Wikipedia policy. Fundamental Wikipedia policy should not be modified, not even if consensus believes that it should. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But it is still recognizing there are no rules, WP is not a bureaucracy. That's why WP:IAR exists, and why consensus drives policy, not the other way around. As to applying to descriptive articles titles, I can see how some titles fail NPOV ("Criticism of X" ones push that) but that doesn't mean all descriptive titles are bad. There is nothing that immediately fails the basic core policies from descriptive topics in general. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV policy is a consensus view of how best to produce the encyclopaedia just like practically everything else. See [2]. Your interpretation of the policy as it applies to titles is not a consensus view. The consensus view is given by the policy on titles, i.e. this policy. Dmcq (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Masem's approach, which is very subjective. Masem's view is that it is alright for editors to makeup or create descriptive titles in the same way as sub-headings within articles. He forgets that sub-headings are merely a convenience for sub-dividing articles into discrete sections, but he forgets they are not article topics in their own right. I don't agree with his approach, because the use of descriptive titles based on some vague relationship between the title and its content is based on editorial opinion, not what the coverage is about. In short, Masem is prepared to ignore WP:NOT#OR if the article content can be sourced and the title is not controversial. In my view, there needs to be more that just a vague relationship between a descriptive titles and their content: only high quality sources can justify their use, and demontrate that the title title has not been "concocted". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Masem — Ignore all rules can be restated as "ignore all unimportant rules." We only ignore the basic rules at the peril of the project. You point out that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, at which I find cautionary instruction against instruction creep. But there is no "instruction creep" inherent in cleaving to basic Wikipdeia policies — WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:NPOV.

Dmcq — I'm only citing WP:NPOV as an example. WP:NPOV is an example of fundamental policy that should not be tampered with. The same sacrosanct quality applies to for instance WP:VER and WP:NOR and WP:RELIABLE. Bus stop (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, IAR is not meant to ignore the unimportant rules, it is to ignore all rules if it betters the encyclopedia. That means, for example, if including some information that fails to meet the WP:V though improves the work, we do that. Now, I would be really really hard-pressed to think of a situation where adding something that fails WP:V is "improving the encyclopedia", but I'm sure if we wait long enough there will be such a case; we just cannot rule it out. There are only two major limitations that we have in "rules" where IAR cannot apply because they come from higher than consensus, that being the Foundation, and that is how we treat BLPs and how we treat non-free content.

The point is that the policy and guidelines are not objective despite how people read them. They are apply as consensus applies them, which means common sense and group agreement outweighs the written text when conflicts arise.

Getting back to descriptive article titles (and not the issue of whether articles with these should exist or not, that's the wrong question to ask here), there is no conflict with any policy for having them. Of course, it depends on your interpretation, as there's also nothing in policy that states that "article titles should be based on sourced title names". But given the use of numerous descriptive title names across WP, I would argue the consensus is that titles don't need to be sourced, but do need to be neutral. But if you want to argue the content of such articles is a problem, that's an agrument to make on a different page. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Masem — it is an arbitrary distinction between title and article. They are different but they are related. Such compartmentalization is preventing us from addressing this issue. The question that we are confronting involves both article content and article titles. It is the concoction that is problematic, whether it be laid at the doorstep of the title or the content of the article. At issue is whether or not we should have articles on arbitrarily construed topics. Do editors have the leeway to construct areas for investigation if those areas for investigation cannot be found in sources. We differ in our response to that question. But we shouldn't be erecting compartmentalizing barriers to addressing that question. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia very much needs those "arbitrary distinctions", so that editors can find the most relevant advice and cut down on forum-shopping. Without the distinctions you deride, Wikipedia would have people asking at WT:External links about formatting citations, and at WT:V about uploading images.

This particular advice page is for editors seeking advice about what to put in the URL (and usually the first sentence) of a given article. We have another page for whether that article should exist at all. If you want to propose banning all subjects that aren't called by proper nouns, or split-off "child" articles, or whatever else falls into your notion of 'subjects that have to be described', then please go to WT:N and suggest it. No discussion here will change either the deletion policy or the inclusion guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(@Busstop) I disagree: there are two issues. One is the allowance for creation of what I'm presently calling "synthesized topics" (Which should not be taken to necessarily mean bad, just that, as you and Gavin are stating, are not the type where the topic is explicitly called out by sources, but can be built from numerous sources). The second issue, based on the presumption that such synthesized topics are appropriate for WP (and my believe, given the shear numbers of them, is that they are), is how to deal with titles that introduce biased terms. The first issue is not appropriate for here, but the second issue is. That's the separation that's needed. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding on: taking an example from below, we argue left and right about the validity of having a synthesized topic like "History of condoms" or "List of Dilbert characters" (the first issue), but I doubt anyone would ever question the descriptive titles of those articles as controversial or needed refinement. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Masem has missed the point: a descriptive article title does not have to be controversial to be problematical; for example, content forks arise all the time through minor or trivial varitions in titles. The effect of using descriptive article titles is that the scope of the topic is drastically restricted, and the risk of content forking is increased. Implicit in the general notability guideline is an assumption that the article title is the right one, but that is not always the case. Before notability can be established, we have to agree on the right title, controversial or not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be inconsistencies in article naming across synthesized topics (eg, "List of characters from X" vs "List of X characters") but that is a vastly different issue compared to "X controversy" or "Criticism of X" which imply a bias and what we need to focus on. Inconsistencies are a much easier matter to resolve. Also, there is never a "right" title, just like there is never a "right" version of an article. We aim for what consensus believes is the most apt title for an article. --MASEM (t) 12:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think these are sweeping generalisations. This proposal is designed to address those instances of descriptive titles where there is a dispute. Maybe we can't agree on what is the "right" article title in every case (if it was that simple, agreement would be easy), but if there identify what is the "wrong" sort of article title, then we can move towards creating some guidance that address the cause. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we're still conflating two issues, the validity of articles on synthesized topics, and the avoidance or source-backing of contentious names. When you get to non contentious names, it's very difficult to see "disputes" coming that aren't already covered by suggests on WP:AT and by simple consistency approaches that are likely too varied to be handled in WP:AT. It is a concern, but highly unrelated to this main discussion. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Gavin's assertion that "Before notability can be established, we have to agree on the right title". I do not have to know whether the article will be called "Heart attack" or "Myocardial infarction" to determine that one of the biggest causes of death worldwide is a notable subject. Notability (explicitly) deals with topics, not URLs or the contents of the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Example articles

Bus stop, you asserted above that "There shouldn't be any descriptive titles."

What would you do with an article like History of condoms, which was split off the lengthy main article to comply with WP:DUE? Give it a non-descriptive title?

What about Development of the inner German border? This title communicates the pages contents in a straightforward and unbiased fashion, but it's still 'descriptive', as no scholarly sources use exactly that phrase.

Have you considered Creation of legal relations in English law? This, too, is a descriptive title.

What about List of Dilbert characters? I doubt that you'll find any reliable sources to support that specific title over other options (e.g., "List of characters in the Dilbert comic strip").

While we might want to apply a good deal of common sense and a bit of WP:Words to watch to article titles, the fact that the title describes the contents of the page in plain English is not necessarily inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If the History of condoms is a topic which a reliable source has written about, then it is a bona fide topic, but if not, then it has been made up. Lets say that the article title is undecided, then consider this question: what should the article title be? "History of condoms" or "History of prophylactics or "History of rubbers"? It seems to me, that depends on what the sources say, and in this case they point to "History of the condom" [3]. If this article was the subject of a dispute about the article title, this is probably the choice supported by the sources. Since "History of condoms" is close, I personally would accept this choice, but I would defer to sources if push came to shove. This is a good example of a descriptive title that is the subject of high quality sources, even though the sourced title has not been used. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If the title was 'The history of your little friends overcoat' would you insist on that instead of History of the condom? Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What ever title is proposed, it would have to backed up by high quality sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting we should have to use 'The story of steam' instead of History of the steam engine because 'the story of steam' is the most popular title for such histories? Dmcq (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would ask, backed up by sources exactly how? Do you mean that the phrase occurs in scholarly sources? Or do you mean that there is a book, a corpus of work, a field of study, or a discipline denoted by the phrase? Or something else? --Nuujinn (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As in names of books on the subject. Since when did scholarly names take precedence over common names in this policy? Dmcq (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly none of the references on that article are very close to either name though there are two external links which are close - "A descriptive history of the steam engine" and "A History of steam". Does this make History of the steam engine a concocted title for a meta-topic or whatever it is that people who disagree with descriptive names say. Dmcq (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was completely unclear, and my question was really more for Gavin. Some editors are asserting, I believe, that titles would have to be sourced. I'm not at all sure I agree in the first place, since a title is ultimately just a label, but for the sake of argument, I'm asking what criteria would be applied. In your example, I would suggest History of the steam engine is a fine title without any direct sourcing. But if sources for a title were required, would it be sufficient that the string "a descriptive history of the steam engine" occur in a paper or other scholarly work? Would a reliable newspaper or magazine suffice? Or would we require a chapter heading in a book, or the title of a book? Or must there needs be a corpus of work including many references? --Nuujinn (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is why high quality sources should always be sought to substantiate the use of descriptive artitle titles. The reason is relates to the point made by Dmcq: the sources suggest lots of alternative titles, so which one to choose? In this case, I would look through all the potential sources and rank them in terms of the reliability of the soources and the quality/depth of coverage which they offer. In answer Nuujinn, this means going through the sources, and ranking the sources in terms of quality of source and coverage, and a choice of title should become obvious.

Going back to the example of steam power which is a topic that is covered by a huge body of sources, article titles are very important, because there is the potential for lots of content forks. For example Steam power during the Industrial Revolution probably covers an identical subject matter as the History of the steam engine. Going back to what Bus stop said earlier, whenever a topic is "concocted," a descriptive title is used. A concocted topic is one which does not have sources specifically referring to it. And their use has the potential to create countless content forks, which is why the guidance in this proposal is needed.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And there again is that implied invalid logic. A concocted topic does not have sources specifically referring to it, therefore if the title is not specific referred to it is a concocted topic. Steam power during the Industrial Revolution and History of the Steam Engine are neither referred to specifically and certainly are not the most common names. "The Story of Steam" is a fairly common name and there have been books DVDs articles and exhibitions named that and it might be suitable for a couple of coloured pages in a children's encyclopaedia but it really isn't suitable as a title in Wikipedia that I can see. As far as I'm concerned all titles on Wikipedia should be descriptive titles and named titles are best because they straightforwardly convey what the topic is about. Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@Gavin, you didn't really answer my question, which is, what would constitute an acceptable threshold for references for a given title? In prior discussions I think there has been disagreement about what would count as an acceptable level of sourcing. And in regard to content forking, we already have a policy on that issue--if the problem we are trying to solve is the content of a given article, I think we have already sufficient policies in place, and other venues would be more apropropriate for those discussions. I would suggest if we lack sufficient will/time/interest/consensus to fix bad content under current policies, a policy on article titles will likely do nothing to address the problem. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Nuujinn, the proposal makes this clear: The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Wikipedia requires high-quality coverage that address the article topic directly and in detail.

The problem of descriptive or segmented article titles is related to content forks, but they are seperate and distinct issues. Which comes first, the descriptive article title or the content fork? Since this is a Chicken or the egg dilemma, the best way is to attack from both ends at once, so that is why we need this proposal.

However, this is not the only problem that the inappropriate use of descriptive article titles gives rise to: the main one is the use of article titles as contentious labels.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's clear--I do not know what you or others mean by it, and "high-quality coverage that address the article topic directly and in detail" is pretty vague, esp. with the use of the phrase "high-quality", which is a subjective measure. By "address the article topic directly and in detail", do you mean extended discussion of the phrase itself, or use of the phrase in connection with discussion of that which is denoted by the phrase? IOW, using the example History of the steam engine, is it sufficient that a similar phrase, eg. "we'll examine the history of the steam pressure engines" occurs in a single article that traces the history of the steam engine, or is it required that there be some work that discusses various histories of steam engines, thus treating the phrase as content? Also, I would suggest there is no "chicken and egg problem" here since we're not concerned with which came first (and that is the essence of the chicken and egg problem), but rather with improving wikipedia. Do you really believe that the content policies are currently insufficient to deal with POV forks? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Content forks are a seperate issue, and it is not our job here to deal with them directly. However, descriptive titles can be a symptom of a content fork, and it is this proposal that seeks to treat this seperate problem.

If idea that descriptive article titles need high quality sources to justify their use is not clear to you, then have a look at WP:REDFLAG on which this propsal is based. Descriptive articles titles are analogous to extraordinary claims: they can be problem if they can't be substantiated, because that opens the door to editorial disputes about their validity.

To substatiate a descriptive article title, there should be coverage from reliable sources that "address the article topic directly and in detail", a principle borrowed from WP:OR, which I would quote as follows:

"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

This is a principle taken up further in WP:OR#Using sources, which I think is highly relevant here, because if there is a mismatch between the article content and the article title, then I think we can agree there is something wrong with the title.

I think we are all agreed that descriptive titles can be problematical, in the sense that they title defines or restrict the scope of coverage. That may be the right approach for some well soruced topics, but where it is not, this guidance addresses the issue of content/title mismatch. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with much of what you are saying, and I endorse your intent. "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." I'm asking how that would apply to an article title, which is substantially different that the content of an article. A title, by its natural, lacks material. It's a label, nothing more. What constitutes sourcing of that label?

Is use of the phrase in a reliable source sufficient, if that source treats the content of the article?
Is use of similar phrase in a reliable source sufficient, if that source treats the content of the article?
Is something more required, and if so, what?

If those questions cannot be answered, the policy is certainly not clearly defined. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. It was rejected at WP:Notability, and I think that this is little more than asking the other parent to interfere with the community consensus -- a bit of "Fine, the community approved (some of) these kinds of articles, but they can't give them titles!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter enormously if a title is descriptive or not until someone objects to it. If someone objects to it, a discussion ensues. If the result of the discussion is that the title is indeed descriptive, then that title should be disallowed. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And replaced by what? "History of the condom"? Isn't that an equally descriptive titles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the point of this proposal: its a descriptive title that is supported by high quality coverage that can withstand challenge. In answer to Nuujinn, I am not sure that the procedure or the mechanics of identifying the the article title that is supported by high quality coverage, because that is a matter for editorial discussion and agreement, and the process followed will be unique to a particular topic. For instance, if you go back to the section on Example: Climategate, you will see that the debate was lengthy and took lots of twists and turns. The only way this debate can be described is by saying "The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Wikipedia requires high-quality coverage from reliable sources that address the article topic directly and in detail". Resolution of these disputes will not be simple or straight forward, but we do know that when push comes to shove, the quality of the coverage given to a particular title is the key. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Much too restrictive. The subject of an article must be notable, not the title. What the title should be is a matter of style only. Given an appropriate subject, we find the most appropriate title, using judgment based on the available sources. The title need not necessarily be externally validated, though it usually would be. The title of an article need not be even mentioned, let alone addressed directly, by sources--this is confusing the title with the subject. We're not extracting an article from existing sources, we're writing an article based on existing sources, using our own words, including our own title according to our own conventions. articles. Gavin's argument is the one he has been using to object to articles such as list of XYZ because nobody has specifically written a source discussing the concept of making a list of XYZs. i.e., we could not make an article on list of congressmen, because nobody has written a publication discussing extensively and directly in detail what way we should make a list of congressmen, it would not be enough though there be extensive works both on the concept of "congressman" and on each of therm. It's the article not the title which must withstand challenge. The subject is what is covered, not the title. The effect, and perhaps the purpose, of this requirement is an excuse to object to otherwise valid and well-accepted types of articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Example: History of the steam engine

What is the name of the topic the history of steam engines or why is it is an unacceptable topic for an encyclopaedia like wikipedia? With your policy a deletionist would nominate it for AfD and following to such a policy it would be deleted. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are agreed it is an encyclopedic topic in its own right, so outright deletion is unlikely, even if the title is disputed. But going back to my earlier post, I noted that Steam power during the Industrial Revolution probably covers an identical subject matter as the History of the steam engine. Using this as a starting point, if I was to propose a merger betweeen the two topics, say, what title would the new article have? The title of the merged article could easily be disputed if it is unsourced, and it is at this point that the editors involved would come to this guideline and decide that the choice of title does require high quality sources to support it against a future challenge.

After a review of the sources, a title could be agreed on that is supported by high quality coverage from reliable sources. For example, there are several viable alternatives, such as "Development of steam power" which lend themselves to this particular topic, and may be this might be chosen as a suitable article topic if the the best of sources address this particular topic directly and in detail. Note that this title is just based purely on my own view (I have not reviewed all the articles concerned), but I think this illustrates the process. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And that begs the question as to how one would define "high quality coverage from reliable sources" in reference to the phrase "Development of steam power" versus "History of the steam engine". I suggest that we try to actually do that with these two terms to see how it would work. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can describe what are high quality sources would look like, and neither does WP:REDFLAG, as this is all relative and specific to a particular topic. But I think that statement is clear that editors should assume, that just because a title may be suggested by one source, they should not presume that is the right title; rather they should examine all the sources, and from their review decide what coverage from reliable sources is of higher quality than others, and come to an agreement as to which title reflects them. Note I am not dismissing the points raised Nuujinn points, I am trying to demonstrate how they are accomodated by the proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a better title; History of steam power. Development of steam power might be misinterpreted as a physical descripton of a steam engine powering up. However, I have no clear idea how to fix classes of article titles or if such a fix is even needed. Abductive (reasoning) 20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess you'd have a similar strange interpretation of 'The Age of Steam' then which I believe is probably the most common name for the topic ;-) Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have equally strange interpretation of the "History of steam power". If history is the study of the human past, then it is probably a descriptive article title best left to topics which describe human, rather than mechanical development over the ages. I think this example illustrates the pitfalls of descriptive article titles quite well: there are a wide range of editorial views as to how this topic should be named. There is already evidence that there are divergent views is the existence of two article addressing the same topic: History of the steam engine and Steam power during the Industrial Revolution all come under the Age of Steam. This proposal addresses these issues in a sensible way, and in my view could be used to assist editors to form a consensus as to what the best supported article title could be. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 04:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is just as well that history is not just a study of the human past, or we would destroy whole professions and put people such as art historians out of a job. -- PBS (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

History is about human endeavour, so history of art fits right in there. The evolution of steam power is more about the mechanical development of the steam engine. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

...which required human intervention, last I checked. "History of dinosaurs" or "History of the solar system" would be an example you're stretching for where the term "history" shouldn't apply. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting addition

Gavin attempted to add his language despite the RFC having only run about a week and seeing no SNOW-like consensus to presume it can be closed early in agreement. Please wait until there is resolution to add this. --MASEM (t) 06:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My eyes have glazed over at the reams of text above and I can't tell how many are in favour of Gavin's proposal or not. I must say that I am, that a cautionary note is a very good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But please explain what your specific objections are, if any, and lets come to a common understanding of the issues. I am sticking my neck out here by making my ideas explicit; a little support or some constructive criticism would be gratefully received. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Several problems by myself and others have been shown above already, the first that this conflates the issues of appropriate of articles that need descriptive titles, and descriptive titles themselves. And secondly, that the requirement that descriptive titles have the backing of sources is in question. Given those are the underpinnings of your entire proposal, it is difficult to otherwise pinpoint specific problems with it otherwise until those points are addressed. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

When you say it "conflates" the issues, do you mean it combines the two? It seems to me you can't have a descriptive article title without an article, so I am not sure what alternative you have in mind. If you have a proposal for change do make it clear. Criticism is welcome, but if its not focused, or specific, then we could be here all day trying to guess what you have in mind. I have made several changes already to bring in the ideas that have surfaced during the discussions. I am asking you now, what specific changes would you like to make, if any? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason we are at this discussion falls all the way back to "Criticism of Judaism" and other similarly titled articles, the point there being that the poor choice of the word "Criticism" leads to people adding poor information to the article because of their impression of that. Thus, focusing only on that single issue, what probably likely has consensus is something like The use of biased words like "criticism" or "scandal" in article titles should only be used if that is how the topic is most often referred to in reliable sources; in all other cases, the article title should be rewritten to remain neutral and avoid the use of such language. Everything else in your proposal, while related, goes far beyond this basic idea and introduces concepts that are either not appropriate here (the fact that we should be determined what are appropriate articles that use descriptive titles, which is an inclusion metric, not style/content) or bring in issues that seem like non-issues to most (like the whole non-contentious "History of the steam engine" discussion above). Note that I'm not saying some of these other elements aren't worthy of being considered overall within p/g on WP, just that they don't belong at WP:AT. It is completely possible to separate these issues of titling and article appropriateness for this discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose to these proposed wording changes which essentially (albeit done in good faith) are an underhanded way of attacking a lot of articles that some editors just don't like. WP:Article Titles is a policy that specifies a naming convention necessary to create an encyclopedia with a consistent, reliable navigational structure. WP:Article Titles is not about notability. The Subject of articles must be notable and the content must not be OR, not the explicit title. The proposed changes will cause chaos at AfD as this backdoor attempt at policy change will become a silver bullet for deletionists.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, if you recognise that the descriptive title "Criticism of Judaism" is a "bad choice", on what basis do you make that judgement? Don't get me wrong, I share that view as well, but they are just our gut feelings. The source of our disquiet is simple: a review of the article suggests that there is no coverage, from any source, that addresses the topic directly or in detail: at no point in the article is the topic of Judaism itself actually being criticised, its actually the tenets of belief that are actually being addressed directly and in detail. The fact that the title is biased is merely a by product of a lack of coverage for this topic. Whilst you and Mike say that this proposal goes far beyond the basic idea of "bad choice", I think you have to admit there has to be some form of metric which can be used to determine whether a descriptive article title is a good or a bad choice beyond editorial opinion. To this end, we would have to look at the quality of the coverage: if there is no significant coverage about the topic described in the title, then its just not appropriate, is it?
Mike is right that this policy is not about notability. However, implicit within WP:N is that the a "good choice" of article has already been made. If a descriptive article title describes its subject matter (which is what such titles are designed to do), then you can see that there is a link between the choice or article title and the notability of the topic it describes. Article title and notability are indeed seperate issues, but they are closely linked (two sides of the same bridge, so to speak): if there is no coverage to demonstrate notability of a defined topic, then there is not going to be any coverage to support the article title either (and vice versa). Up to now, all the discussions about article titles have floundered on this issue, because, if we don't recognise what is on the other side of bridge, we cannot resolve disputes over article titles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 03:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But see, you are still forcing this connection between notability and article titles. First, and most importantly, notability only applies to topics, not articles; there is a major different between a topic and article, and it is not a 1-to-1 relationship that every topic only has one article or that an article needs a wholly separate topic to be encyclopedic (particularly when coupled with SIZE). Notability has to be removed from the equation, and WP:AT only start on the presumption that the article content is appropriate for inclusion on WP. At which point we only concern ourselves if the title is the most common name or the most unbiased name or one otherwise backed by sources.
I don't disagree that content of articles with descriptive titles needs to be subject to careful examination to make sure unwanted OR, baised viewpoints, and otherwise inappropriate inclusion of poorly sourced materials. But that is a different ball of wax that doesn't involve article titles directly, and one that I'm working on a starting language for future discussion. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The notability of subjects is the only thing discussed in WP:N, and we have enough problems over that. If there is anything basic to our ever being able to resolve issues over content, is that the notability of a subject is not a discussion of the particular contents within an article. We settle disputes over titles by discussing them. In a few cases, the disputes have required further dispute resolution, but I can think of no occasion where we have literally been unable to agree on a title for an otherwise acceptable subject. On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of articles with perfectly good verifiable titles that have been rejected because the subject is not notable: showing the name of a person exists is not proof of suitability for an article. Once we have sources to write an article, and agree the subject is suitable, we find the best title. We do not have to excerpt the title from a particular source, or prove the title by itself is notable. This argument has been raised before, primarily at list articles, and uniformly rejected because it would lead to the absurd result we could not make a list of , say, senators, unless other people have written an article about the concept of there being a list of senators. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue that this proposal seeks to address is descriptive article titles that are not verifiable, or if they are, there are verifiable titles that are better alternatives because they are supported by the significant coverage. This proposal is not primarily a way of rejecting titles; rather it is mechanism that ensures that a particular descriptive title can withstand challenge from other editors who may have different opinions about its validity. We don't have to prove that a title is notable; rather, that the title fits the topic or subject. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to drop "significant coverage" from your proposal as that's a facet of notability, which is not part of this. I agree that we should give weight to a title that is oft-used in relevant literature over one that is completely original if that original title is contentious, but that only required that the title is used repeatedly in many different sources - even in passing - not "supported by the significant coverage". Again, any proposal here should immediately start from the assumption the article contents are allowed by consensus on WP, and focus only on the naming issue to make the article title the best we can do for that content. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is still very unclear as to what would constitute verifiability of the title. Why would detailed coverage in reliable sources be a requirement for an article title if the contents of same pass muster for notability? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent question Nuujinn! I await with anticipation on the answer.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose strongly, the addition kept talking about significant coverage and verifiability and led up to "The use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Wikipedia requires significant coverage from reliable sources that address the article topic directly and in detail." This does not describe accepted practice or anything that happens at AfD. It is simply false. This seems to me to be another attempt to to change the policy and delete articles like Scientific consensus on climate change because of minor differences in the terms used or because the actual title used wasn't the main title of a book etc. Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have flushed out an issue that important to this proposal, and that is about whether descriptive article titles can be supported by editorial opinion alone. I don't want to judge Dmcq viewpoint, but if there are differences of opinion about an article title, how do you resolve those differences? I agree with him that a particular title does not have to be used verbatim, because it should be possible to determine what the subject matter of an article is through the coverage in the article. The problem with descriptive article titles is that the coverage of in the article is restricted by the title, and what this proposal is trying to do is to arrive at a formula whereby it is possible to determine whether that restriction is supported by high quality coverage, or not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of the change that Gavin Collins has been trying to bring about. My own feeling is that descriptive titles cut against basic policy. My own feeling is that the term "descriptive title" should not be used as a defense against opposition to an article that involves a sort of synthetic area of investigation. That is the key to all matters concerning this issue — opposition. I feel that any title is potentially acceptable. But it is not infrequently found that points of view are pushed by the very selection of an area for investigation. Contrived areas of investigation can hopelessly frustrate the implementation of NPOV. When editors object to articles that address artificially cobbled together topics, there should be no defense in calling the title a "descriptive title." Sources have to identify the overarching theme of an article or a descriptive title should be deemed invalid. Obviously what I am saying identifies a link between article titles and article topics. There is a natural relationship between the two. We should be thinking of "descriptive titles" as tentatively acceptable. If no one objects — then they are fine. But the concept of a descriptive title should no longer be considered acceptable in the face of editorial objection to synthetically created topics. Bus stop (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop - Although I suspect you don't realize it, your statement: If no one objects — then they are fine. But the concept of a descriptive title should no longer be considered acceptable in the face of editorial objection to synthetically created topics. argues to make the boresome behavior of I don't like it OK and to put the burden of keeping an article on those who do like it by imposing almost impossible criteria (that any title, unless the explicit wording of the title was covered by sources is synthetically created, and therefore bad). WP:Article titles is pure and simple, a naming convention policy. The section on Descritive title is a sub-section of Neutrality and article titles. The aim of the policy is to create title that are not judgemental. This policy is not about WP:V, WP:GNG or WP:OR and any attempt to make it so must fail for the sake of the future of WP. This policy is about a naming convention that is consistent with and promotes WP:NPOV. Please don't try an rationalize it into a tool for the I don't like it crowd.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mike Cline. These discussions keep drifting back to content issues, as is a policy on guideline on titles will prevent bad articles. I don't see much problem with an article title that is descriptive sitting atop of a well written neutral article, and I don't think a pretty title will fix a badly written, non-neutral article. I also think defining what counts as detailed coverage in reliable sources is impossible, since a title is a label and thus has no content per se--and that means someone has to make a jump from the string used in the title to strings used in sources, and so far, no one has been able to say how that would occur. Honestly, I can't see how that process would not fall afoul of OR anyway, but maybe that's just me. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the academic tone of these arguments. They are impressive.

My pet peeve as to title (content "sort of" okay but winds up lumping two events together that probably shouldn't be is Red Scare, implying that people overreacted to a threat. While the overreaction should be documented, it is not done under an academic title, which bothers me. Ironically, the article is highly subject to persistent vandalism because of the title which is a bit frivolous.

If "Criticism of Judaism" is pov, what would be an acceptable title? "A critical analysis of Judaism"? That seems to promise a bit much on our part. More than we can deliver perhaps. Almost invites WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Red Scare, it is an academically used term ([4]). It's also the common name that describes the two periods. Per what Gavin is saying, we'd only be able to use Red Scare if it was documented that way -- which it is, in addition to being a common name term for those periods. It does have negative connotations, but it is the most "correct" title that coincides with the sources. Any other title is going to be descriptive.

For the Criticism of Judaism, it has been suggests that "Critical opinion of" or "Critical analysis of" are neutral replacements, since neither now suggest only negative criticism. (And again, "Criticism" itself is technically neither positive or negative as defined, but in practical use it is primarily negative critiques of the topic, and thus the need to change it). --MASEM (t) 15:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if "Critical opinion of" is more neutral, the effect of the descriptive title is the same: it restricts the scope of the article, and for that reason, a descriptive title should be supported by high quality coverage. This is more than just a matter of liking or disliking a particular title, or making more or less judgmental. Rather it is the restriction that the title puts on the scope of coverage. If the sources support the use of a descriptive article, then the restriction is justified. But as Bus Stop says, if the title is contrived, the restriction works against WP:NPOV, because where there are no sources to justify the restriction, then editorial opinion determines content, and editors become gatekeepers rather than facilitators.

Going back to the title example of "Criticism of Judaism", its hard to say what sources define the topic or provide details of it origin, if any; all that we know is that the title restricts the scope of coverage to criticism. After that, its downhill all the way: there lots of scope for POV pushing and editorial claims to ownership over the article. Maybe a source will be found that defines the topic, but until then, its hard to say that this is anything other than coatrack article. We need this proposal to help resolve disputes over such article titles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that use the string "Criticism of Judaism", but some editors still assert that it's irrelevant that they do. More importantly, if the problem is the content of the article, we have policies to deal with that problem. We may fail to deal with those problems, or choose to ignore them, but it I do not think it is a lack of policies that constrains us. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — "Criticism of Judaism" is just a sequence of three words. It has obvious applicability in all sorts of contexts. But it is merely being used. No source can be found suggesting that it has any particular meaning. It is used as needed. No source using that sequence of words is suggesting that a particular scope of material is being referred to. Editors have argued on that article's Talk page as to what should be included under "criticism of Judaism" but no editor has pointed to a source to support their opinion. That is because no source of that sort exists. WP:RS says "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Descriptive titles are a necessary component of all articles lacking sources for their overall theme. There may be sources for what might be called the sub-components of such an article. But the article in its scope is lacks a source. And also the parameter chosen may be difficult to reconcile with NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You're still arguing about the notability and worthiness of the topics. That's an issue to discuss, but not one for this page. To get anywhere on this page, we need to presume that the topic is appropriate to include, but the whole discussion if that's worthwhile to include is elsewhere. And because it is a highly consensus-based issue like notability, that's a guideline page not policy. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability and article titles are two ends of the same bridge, in the sense that if the sources cited in the article don't support the title, then it is unlikely that the topic is notable. The problem with descriptive article titles is that they can be used to mask a lack of notability by creating artificial restrictions on the scope of the subject matter. In the case of the article Criticism of Judaism, the article topic is actually about Judaism, but by differentiating it from that article by putting "Criticism of..." in front of it, a topic with narrower scope has been created. In the case of "Criticism of Judaism", the article was originally created[5] as coatrack article.

It is entirely proper and natural to discuss article titles and the notability of their subject matter in tandem, and the argument that they should be be is not a valid criticism of this proposal as I see it. The editorial decision to restrict the scope of an article can be a good one where there are lots of sources to support a standalone article, e.g. History of Judaism, but where there are no sources available, the descriptive article titles such as "Criticism of..." have no meaning in the real world, and the origin and definition of the article topic are only known to the editor who created the article. The issue of descriptive article titles and notability are both separate but connected, so we can't discuss the two in isolation. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

They are completely separate issues. Once the consensus has determined that we should have an article about a topic not explicitly outlined in sources but can be inferred, how to name it is a complete separate issue. How we name such is policy (this page), but whether we include them or not is highly subjective and always will be, at beast, guideline material. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Masem — all synthetic articles require descriptive titles, without exception — if an article's topic is not supported in its overall scope then the editor has no alternative but to use a descriptive title. Only a descriptive title will do. Descriptive titles facilitate the creation and ongoing defense of articles that perhaps do not deserve to exist. WP:RS says "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Any discussion of descriptive titles should be including a discussion of their important use in supporting articles on topics that are not supported in their entire scope by sources. What you are citing is a technical reason not to address an important aspect of the use of descriptive titles. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And you're saying exactly what I'm saying: "Descriptive titles facilitate the creation and ongoing defense of articles that perhaps do not deserve to exist." while I don't agree with that exact sentiment, says that whether we include articles with descriptive titles is an inclusion/notability issues, and not a function on WP:AT. Once it is presumed the content should be kept (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination)) , only does then this page come into play. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that's the crux of the issue, from my point of view. If an article violates WP:OR, there's already a policy in place to deal with it, so this policy isn't needed. And if an article has a descriptive title, but does not violate WP:OR, there's no need for this policy, since there's no problem in the first place. And if we cannot come to consensus that an article should be deleted, that suggests that the community finds some value in the content. Many articles need work, and we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

I also think it is telling that discussions on this policy on titles invariably come back to content issues, and that we apparently cannot come to any consensus about what would constitute detailed coverage in reliable sources for a title. Although I applaud the intent, I personally see nothing gained by the policy worded the way it is now. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — a few posts up you say, "There are many reliable sources that use the string "Criticism of Judaism", but some editors still assert that it's irrelevant that they do." And above you say, "…we apparently cannot come to any consensus about what would constitute detailed coverage in reliable sources for a title." Consider the article: "Qualia". We find this sentence in the Qualia article: "Clarence Irving Lewis, in his book Mind and the World Order (1929), was the first to use the term "qualia" in its generally agreed modern sense." Notice the implication that there is a "…generally agreed modern sense." I am not claiming to know much about the subject of that article. But the point that I am trying to make is that there is the suggestion that there is a generally agreed upon understanding of what we are referring to when we use the term "qualia." That is the sort of support that we expect to see in sources. If supporting sources are not present it is debatable that such an article should exist. Bus stop (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting your point. Are you saying that qualia is a descriptive title? It does not seem so to me, fwiw. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — you are say that, "There are many reliable sources that use the string "Criticism of Judaism", but some editors still assert that it's irrelevant that they do." That is not even a "descriptive title." That should be called a "suggestive title." Notice that the "Qualia" article has a first paragraph devoted to "Definitions of qualia." It is an article that does its best to define its subject. You are saying "There are many reliable sources that use the string "Criticism of Judaism," but this is largely incorrect. There is no definition of the topic and by-and-large there are not to be found any sources that establish that topic. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In regard to definitions, WP should not define terms, but rather defer to sources or rely on common knowledge. In regard to Criticism of Judaism, what the string denotes is not really in question, I think--if there were a definition found in academic sources, it would likely be an narrow one used for the particular critical work. In parallel, where is to be found a definition of "development of the steam engine" or "the age of steam". Any descriptive title will likely lack a concrete definition, in that regard we are in agreement.

In regard to Criticism of Judaism, there is substantial disagreement as to what kinds of criticism belong in that article versus other articles. Those disagreements are fundamentally content disputes, and, given the number and breadth of articles related to various aspects of all religions, I'm not particularly concerned with those distinctions, but rather with the quality of the individual articles--these articles form a mesh covering the topic. However, this is an issue of content, irrelevant, I think, to this discussion.

That leaves the question of whether or not there are adequate sources under the proposed policy for the title "Criticism of Judaism". I think that in the particular case there are, if only given the long and substantial traditions of religious apologetics and polemics. That there are more than one such thread of historical discussion means that the content of such an article will necessarily be less homogeneous than most other articles, but personally, I'm not concerned by that, since I see a continuum from disambiguation pages through lists, summary style, "regular" articles, to stubs. But again, that particular problem relates to content, and is not relevant here. But that is all rather beside my main points, which are:

Absent some clear and concise guideline as to what constitutes detailed coverage in reliable sources, the proposed policy is not very helpful.
The reasoning for the policy seems to circulate around content--please forgive the oversimplification, but it seems to me that the purpose of the proposed policy is to prevent such articles as violate existing policies--and I'm unsure as to what advantage the policy would provide over current policies.

Sorry to be so long winded, --Nuujinn (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — you say, "In regard to Criticism of Judaism, there is substantial disagreement as to what kinds of criticism belong in that article versus other articles." Actually, there is no connection between that article and other articles. You convey the same notion again, "…these articles form a mesh covering the topic." In point of fact there is neither a topic nor a mesh. All articles are separate, even if several of them begin with the wording "criticism of" followed by the name of a religion. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the "general drift" of things here but I would be willing to support a change to "Critical analysis of Judaism" or other more objective title. This would also need to be done to all the other articles that have this name, Catholics, etc. Not trivial but not global to this discussion either. Just a possible step in the right direction towards improved objectivity.Student7 (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

While it seems to me that "Critical analysis of Judaism would result in a more objective article, I guess I am no longer convinced (see comments below by others) that it would represent the totality of articles that need to be written, even though "Criticism of Judaism" may attract "unfair" (pov) comments that editors have to try to sort out. I will continue to follow your comments here. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Student7 — you say, "This would also need to be done to all the other articles that have this name, Catholics, etc." No, it would not. They are separate, independent articles. It could be done if one chose, but there is no necessity that that be done. Each article could conceivably have the title editors at that article felt most befitting of the content in that article. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that we're back at what started this whole discussion: "Criticism of X", while from a technical english standpoint, is a neutral title, it is implied to be negatively baised. "Criticism of X" and "Critical analysis of X" are essentially the same topic, but one version removes the implicit analysis. This type of discretion in article titles is what this entire discussion is about, not whether the article should exist or not. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and FWIW, I would endorse renaming pretty much any "Criticism of X" article to "Critical analysis of X", and I could envision supporting same in a guideline or policy. And Bus Stop, while you are correct in the simple case that decisions or judgments made about one article do not affect others, it is my opinion that any summary style article does bear a relationship to other articles in that they serve as an aid to navigation to other articles that cover similar or related topics. In that respect they are a node point in a mesh--indeed, that is their function. And I believe Student7 has a valid point--if we were to approach solving the POV content problems that some editors seem to believe stem from use of "Criticism of X" as a title (and I am not amoung that number, as I feel the POV problems have other more substantial origins than the article title) with a change in policy, or even a guideline, the purpose of that would have to be to effect a change in numerous articles, even if that change were to occur over a long period of time, one article at a time. Policies and guidelines are not written with a single article in mind, so there's no point in writing one unless the intent is to affect multiple articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:42, 6 Jtuly 2010 (UTC)

Giving the article Criticism of Judaism another name won't make any difference if, as Bus Stop says, there is no definition of the topic and by-and-large there are not to be found any sources that establish that topic under any name. There are lots of opinions that it should be a topic, but without high quality coverage sources to support the article title, its lack of notability is laid bare. The content issues which this article has (mainly NPOV) go back to the fact that it was created as coatrack article and continued existence is based on editorial opinion alone. Its descriptive article title is being used as fig leaf in the sense that the article's subject matter is being hidden by the title, even though the content addresses other topics. This proposal addresses this issue, and "Criticism of XYZ" is just one worked example we have gone through to show this proposal provides a verifiable way of resolving editorial disputes about such titles when they are challenged. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is sounding more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Gavin, it has passed AFD recently (May 2010), we must start with the assumption that consensus wants the article to stay. Focus only on the issue of a title problem, which is what can only be done on this page. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, a bad article can only be fixed one way--by fixing the article. As I've said, I personally think there that particular topic has sufficient notability to support its existence as a summary style article, whatever its current quality or condition, but really that is neither here nor there, since the article exists today. And those are issues of content particular to the one article and thus seem to me to be moot to this discussion.

But, on the other hand, if you believe that "Criticism of X" tends to lead to bad articles, or simply that "Critical analysis of X" is a better title format than "Criticism of X", there may be enough consensus here to at least make that change in policy or to write a guideline to that effect. I personally do not think it will make much difference one way or another in terms an effect on the individual articles' quality, but I think a number of us involved in the discussions here would support that kind of language. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think supporters of the article Criticism of Judaism have based their defense around the argument known as WP:BUTITEXISTS, but the fact is there are no sources in the article to suggest it does. This topic is a classic case of WP:WITHIN: criticisms of the various tenets of Jewish belief are already described directly, in detail and with context in balanced articles about these notable topics. The article title is a mere fig leaf, which is being used to define a topic that is not supported by any sources. I have heard many editors' opinions on this issue, but I have yet to see sources which define the topic, identify its origin or describe its development. It might be a title suitable for a sub-heading in article, or the title of a child's essay, but beyond that it fails WP:MADEUP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, the article has passed AFD as "keep" within 2 months. Unless you have significant new arguments to present to re-challenge its deletion, this is simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And why we only should be focusing on the titling problem with that article, not whether it can be retained. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Masem — 50% of the "keep" votes in the last AFD included some form of the idea that other criticism of a religion articles exist therefore a criticism of Judaism article should exist too. While those editors are entitled to their vote of "keep," the reasoning that they include with their vote happens to be off base. That is because the existence of one article does not create a responsibility or an obligation for another article to exist. Articles are separate. Each article is created separately and, if need be, deleted separately. Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Take it to deletion review (though it would likely be too late and considered too pointy if you did it now) if you feel it was closed wrong. Propose new policy/guidelines about the inclusion of such articles. But for purposes of article titles, the acceptance of the Criticism of Judaism must be treated as a fixed point to build from. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I do think that "Criticism of Judaism" leads to bad articles, but, there may be allied articles. For example, would "Critical analysis of Nazi-ism" cover the same material as "Criticism of Nazi-ism?" Maybe both articles would be needed anyway. Why bother having both? Student7 (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of allied articles, but which are bad and which are good? This is the key problem with leaving things to "consensus", which in the context of made up articles is actually ownership. It is entirely possible to spawn articles like "Critical analysis of Judaism", "Criticism of Jewish Religion" or "Analytical criticisms of Judaism". None of the sources support these titles, and the only way to provide some form of rationale for their inclusion is editorial opinion (i.e. WP:IKNOWIT). Passing an AFD is never a valid basis for inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Significant coverage

There seems to be agreement that descriptive article titles should be supported by coverage from reliable sources, which makes sense if a title is challenged, say, because it is in any way controversial. What I am finding puzzling at the this juncture is that there is resistance to the idea that a controversial article title should be supported by significant coverage, because the only alternatives are mentions in passing or trivial coverage. To date, we have worked through several examples where the article title is subject to challenge, and the only way to resolve the deadlock between rival camps with editorial opinions that are opposed to each other is to look to external sources to see what they say. It seems to me that unless those external sources contain significant coverage about the topic that is the subject of the dispute, it is not possible to resolve a dispute, because only significant coverage contains the depth of coverage sufficient to support the use of a particular topic. If significant coverage is the sticking point in this discussion, how can we get around this? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

All those elements are elements of concern for notability, and do not belong at this discussion or on this policy page. Also, we need to consider the gap between truly contentious descriptive titles (ones that use peocock/weasel/neogolims/etc to assert a bias) and simple title disputes like "History of the steam engine" above, which certainly are a far cry from a sourcing issue and more a matter of consistency.

Mind you, there is an element in notability in what we expect: If the only logical name for a topic is a contentious descriptive title, then that needs to be backed by sources, and very likely by the logic you have, it would need to be a notable topic of it's own (see Lewinsky scandal). If one finds that the only logical title is a contentious descriptive one but cannot back that by sources, it is probably a bad separate article that was created specifically on a certain bias, and can be integrated/merged elsewhere. But this specifically when we're talking titles that encourage a biased POV just by how they read due to the presence of certain words. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, here’s how we get around this. We stick to the very narrow scope of what the Descriptive Titles section is saying: We don’t create titles that are or appear judgmental. Our titling policy in a naming convention and has no relationship to notability, OR or RS. If the subject/content of an article is otherwise notable, supported with reliable sources, NPOV and not OR, but the title runs afoul of our titling policy, the task is to fix the title, not delete the article. That is done through discussion. Now, if we are trying to strengthen the section Descriptive Titles to aid in those discussions, your idea of sufficient coverage has some merit as a weighting mechanism between opposing views as to the exact wording of the title. If there are five ways to say Criticism of foo, we should use the least judgmental wording or use the wording that is most widely supported by sourcing if consensus can be reach along those lines. The only goal is to create at title that does not appear judgmental, but as well conveys what the article is about. This section cannot be written in a way that allows it to now to applied to any article title. The policy in this section can only be written in a way that clearly makes it applicable only to situations where editors have a legitimate concern over the judgmental nature of a title. Even then, it should only suggest the sufficient coverage mechanism as a useful way to make the title less judgmental. If the policy is written in a way that it can now be applied to any title because an editor doesn’t like the article or content, it has gone beyond the scope of the intent of the Descriptive Titles section.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right.--Kotniski (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there are several misunderstandings have arisen here. Masem says that only controversial or judgmental article titles should be discussed here, yet it is obvious to me that whether a title is controversial or not is just a subset of what we are trying to deal with. Rather it is any descriptive article title that is challenged or is disputed that this proposal addresses, and whether of not there is significant coverage to support or rebuke that challenge. Since descriptive article titles define the topic by restricting the scope of an article, there has to high quality coverage to support this implicit editorial decision. What may be viewed as controversial or judgmental to one editor may be less so to another, but effect of restricting the scope on what and cannot be included in an article is the same as having a large big sticker in the lede saying "Only add stuff about XYZ" or "Do not add stuff about XYZ" to an article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive titles and lists

There is a larger issue here, again what I'm calling "synthesized topics" which include lists, spinouts, and other collections that may not be a notable topic but have consensus to be on WP. Descriptive titles are a clear result of synthesized topics, yes, but as been pointed out, this policy is strictly about titles and not article content or anything else about articles. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of notability is a separate issue, and in any case there is no consensus for non-notable topics to have their own articles or lists.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus, but that doesn't mean we allow or disallow them. Which is why any language hear has to sidestep the question of coverage in sources. Any why in a completely separate effort develop a path for achievement when these articles have consensus. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus on this issue, embodied in several Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and Masem knows this and can cite those policies and guidelines if he wants to. We know that lists are just another type of article, just that their format differs. Their content (and therefore their titles) are governed by policies and guidelines just as much as any other mainspace page. To cut a long story short, list topics that are not notable in themselves have no rationale for inclusion, and fail WP:NOT. They also fail WP:UNDUE, because what is the point of listing lots of stuff if the content of the list exceed the content of the articles to which they relate? Again there is no rationale.

Going back to descriptive article titles, if a list does not contain some sort of source that verifies the authorship, origin or definition of the list topic, then that article title can be challenged. This is what happens at WP:AFD: lists that have been completely made up, that cannot be defined, or have coatrack titles get deleted all the time. A descriptive article title may not be the primary focus of a deletion discussion, but a title that is not supported by any source or worse still, is unverifiable, is certainly at risk of deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion is not a content issue, and not driven by policy. For every AFD you can point to where such articles and lists were deleted, I'm sure there's other AFD where such was kept. There are concerns on NPOV and NOR within such articles, which do have high priority if these articles are kept, but otherwise it is a consensus-determined result. As long as we have SIZE, we are going to have these types of articles. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen a list deleted that is notable. As I say, the only guarantee of not being deleted is to provide a source that verifies the authorship, origin or definition of a list topic, ideally from a third party. This is the metric by which all articles in Wikipedia are judged by, and that includes lists. They are not exempt from content policy (and by extension, notability), as Masem would like us to believe. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a bad correlation vs causation argument. "Notable lists are never deleted" equating "Only notable should be included" is inappropriate logic. Notability is a guideline for exactly this reason. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are the guidelines: topics, including list topics should be notable, because if they are not, then they can be challenged as failing WP:NOT. I will admit that not every article nominated for WP:AFD is deleted for want of notability, but WP:N is clear about what happens to topics that are not notable, so lets lay this issue to rest. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability is only one measure of inclusion on WP, and that only applies to topics, not articles. There are other ways for topics to be included on WP by consensus, and there are many more means for articles that support a larger topic to be included, also by consensus (though AFD). It is not logically the case that "only notable lists are kept" that leads to "we can only have notable lists", only that a good assurance to avoid any questions of retention is to provide sources showing a notable topic. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"I have never seen a list deleted that is notable." I have because the list fails NPOV. -- PBS (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Article titles is pure and simple a naming convention, nothing else

Comment this sub-section and the following two are the result of many hours in the clouds at 36,000ft plus thinking about this. Something I hope I don't have to do much longer.

Article titles and article topics (subjects) are distinct elements but often confused. The article topic is essentially: What is this article about?. The article title is a necessary navigational element (articles are indexed and categorized by their titles not their topics) and should convey to the reader: This article is about this topic. Some article titles by necessity are Descriptiv. A third element of articles is the lead-in paragraph, the first few sentences of which acts as sort of a sub-title creating an expanded definition of the article’s topic and sets the plate for the content that follows. It is an understanding of these three elements in combination that is necessary to understand what the policy on article titles WP:Article titles should and should not be.

Article Topic: Must be notable, supported by WP:V and not OR
Article Title: Must convey article subject in a NPOV manner and must conform to WP naming conventions to support indexing, navigation and categorizing (this includes descriptive titles)
Article Lead: Must explain article subject, convey notability, supported by WP:V and not OR or POV. Article leads further clarify concise descriptive titles.

What follows is a discussion of these elements and why any attempt to establish rigid notability WP:V policies for an article title is fraught with problems. In a great many articles the title is exactly the same as the article’s topic. When this occurs, if the subject is notable, then the title presents us with no issues. For example:

Article topic: Yellowstone National Park, Article title: Yellowstone National Park

There are articles however, where explicit titles differ somewhat from the actual topic because there are many alternative titles that would convey to the reader an otherwise notable but complex article topic in a perfectly acceptable fashion.

Complex Article topic: The study of wolves in Yellowstone, predator control and extirpation of wolves from Yellowstone, the social, political and environmental battle to re-establish a viable wolf population in Yellowstone, their physical re-introduction into the park and the economic and environmental consequences of that re-introduction. This is a very complex topic with a great many elements, vectors and a wide range of sources (from many conflicting points of view). Article titles (actual): History of wolves in Yellowstone, Wolf reintroduction. Both articles cover the above topic in slightly different ways.
- In the above case, both of the articles could conceivably have alternative descriptive names, especially if you analyzed the article content. Here are some examples:
  - History of predator control in Yellowstone, History of predator control in Yellowstone National Park, Wolf management in Yellowstone, Consequences of wolf management in Yellowstone, Endangered Species Act impacts on Yellowstone, Endangered wolves of Yellowstone, etc.

Each of the above titles could reasonably be used for the article topic mentioned. Each would be reasonable given that the lead-in would be written in a way to further explain the article topic. Some of these titles are better than others. All are NPOV. Although the title Endangered wolves of Yellowstone is probably neutral, it is a poor title because it implies a context that no longer exists although it technically did exist at one time. However, if the article’s content was restricted to the right context (1995-2008) then the title would be OK although much improved if it was Endangered wolves of Yellowstone (1995-2008). The actual article titles and the alternatives above are descriptive titles, none of which for the most part the explicit wording of which is supported a reliable source. No one in this discussion could, (or would I hope) argue that the topics of the above two articles are not notable. Yet they have descriptive titles whose explicit wording is not supported by reliable sources. The exact phrase: Wolf reintroduction although found in a lot of the literature on the subject, so in reestablishment of wolves, wolf recovery, et al. What is found consistently are the concepts of re-introduction, re-establishment, introduction into, recovery of, wolves, Yellowstone and wolf management in Yellowstone. Each concept might be suitable for an article title. The actual act of re-introduction in Yellowstone was a very short term event (1995-96). Prior to that there was research and political battles to create a legal means to accomplish the re-introduction. After that period, it is about wolf management and the consequences of a re-established wolf population in the park. In the case of History of wolves in Yellowstone, the title describes an article that covers all aspects of wolves in Yellowstone from 1872 to present. Again, the explicit wording of the title is not found in reliable sources. In fact, the most definitive work on the history of Yellowstone wolves up to 1996 is entitled: The Yellowstone Wolf—A Guide and Sourcebook, Schullery (1996), not the History of wolves in Yellowstone. Descriptive titles are necessary in an encyclopedia. Complex and comprehensive subjects require descriptive titles. The only caveat is that a Descriptive title be as NPOV as possible. The burden of notability is on the article’s topic and content, not its title. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am slightly uncomfortable with the article History of wolves in Yellowstone, because its lede that defines the topic appears to be entirely of original research. I am not familiar with the topic, but a quick skim of the article suggests to me that this could be an example of an article title that this proposal is trying to discourage, since there there is no significant coverage to support the view that wolves have ever been studied in a historical context that the lede suggests. This is a good example of where a grandiose title has been applied to a subject matter that could be described using a title that is more straightforward. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And as Mike Cline has pointed out, that has nothing to do with how the article is named. We cannot turn this page into a discussion of the appropriate of these types of articles, only how they are named once accepted even if you don't like the content. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, take a close look at the table of contents and Introduction from Schullery's book and suggest for a more concise and descriptive title for the History of wolves in Yellowstone that in your opinion would not be OR. (bearing in mind that everything in the article is sourced to multiple reliable sources). It has to be named something, what descriptive title would you give based on Schullery's work?--Mike Cline (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have ignored my point. "History of XYZ" type topics are usually defined as being subjects which have an origin or definition, usually from a book on the topic. Simply creating an article called "History of XYZ" is a madeup topic. What distinguishes the two are high quality sources that support the existence of the topic, and differentiate it from closely related topics. Remember, this is an article title, not a sub-heading in an article, or a chapter heading in a book. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a completely bogus argument. If there is a topic X that has a "History" section, "History of X" is absolutely not a made up topic. It may not be a notable (per WP:N-definition) but it is verifiable and would be appropriate to expand into an article if there are size limitations in the article. You cannot connect the acceptability of an article to the issue of title naming. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

in·cre·du·li·ty - Gavin that's my first reaction to your comment above: usually from a book on the topic. Are you saying with a straight face and full conviction that Schullery's book is not about the History of Wolves in Yellowstone? If it isn't what is the book about? (I fully realize that we live in two different cultures separated by a common language, but since I've lived extensively in both, I was still incredulous when I read your comment.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see that Mike & Masem have strongly held views about descriptive article topics, but we can't base article title on belief alone: there has to some source of external validation for this title, and it has to more than just a heading in a book. You have ignored my earlier point: the leading paragraph of this article is original research. If this is not a made up topic, then why is its defintion made up? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, your persistence is astounding. 1) WP:LEAD is a Manual of Style guideline and leads serve many masters, notability is only one of them. 2) What specific part of this the lead do you think is OR? (i.e. facts/statements that are unsupportable by sources). The lead is factual and supported by multiple sources. The lead, in a prose sort of way, describes the contents that follows and fulfills the requirements of WP:Lead. The title is indeed descriptive of the article content, but not based on the belief that wolves as a species have a notable history in Yellowstone, but is based on the FACT that there are multiple reliable sources that indeed chronicle that history from just about every conceivable angle. Do you dispute that? Your comment immediately above suggests that unless an article title is explicitly stated in a reliable source and the lead doesn’t contain an explicit phrase quoted from that source defining the explicit title, then the article is OR. In the larger scheme of things, you continue to demonstrate (as I have said elsewhere) a fundamental lack of understanding of our OR policy. It clouds your thinking and has put you in an intractable position.--Mike Cline (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be astounded, Mike, try looking at this article from a neutral standpoint. To demonstrate that content is not original research or synthesis, citations should be provided, that is indisputable. I have read he lead paragraph and there are no citations in it, which is a bit odd, because it contains very strong statements of opinion and fact that are not made any where in the body of the article itself. Editors can't just make stuff up - have a look at WP:REDFLAG about this issue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, Gavin, are you talking about History of wolves in Yellowstone? If so, there must be some different version of WP out there. It's not unusual for a lead to lack citations, but I see that Mike's added a couple--but the article itself recapitulates the lead material and the article seems well enough sourced, and I'd hardly call it "made up". --Nuujinn (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that he has added citations, which I have challenged on the talk page. If the lede is directly supported by one or more citations, then that is fine. However, whether "History of wolves in Yellowstone" is not a title that is supported by sufficient sources to withstand a challenge, that is another matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Strike the concept of Synthesized topic

Because the term Synthesis has an explicit, and unwelcome meaning in WP WP:SYN, its use in these discussions is misleading and inappropriate. The current Article title policy does not use the term Synthesis, Synthesized or any variation of it in its attempt to establish a WP naming convention policy. It does however use the term Descriptive title, which in my humble attempts to understand and conform to WP policy means a title that describes the article’s subject and content in a somewhat accurate way. As the policy says: Descriptive titles are by necessity created by WP editors to convey the subject (topic) of an article in a concise manner. The more complex the article’s topic, creating a Descriptive Title consistent with our naming convention becomes more challenging. What the phase Synthesized topics implies is that a descriptive title that does not have reliable sources supporting the explicit wording of the title is made up, synthesized, and therefore BAD. Do WP editors create Synthesized Titles and Topics? In other words have articles been created where the topic and title are clearly OR and obviously drawing a conclusion completely unsupported by sources. Indeed they do, but they rarely last long. On the other hand, do editors need to create Descriptive titles that may not be explicitly supported by sources in an effort to concisely convey the topic of a notable and complex article subject? Of course they do. The policy on Descriptive titles is pure and simple a section of policy about a naming convention. It should have only two criteria:

Descriptive titles should conform to our general naming conventions
Descriptive titles should be crafted to convey article topics in an NPOV manner

Attempts to juxtaposition the concept of WP:SYN into this discussion is misguided and should be avoided.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the issues, but I'm at a loss to otherwise describe the general types of articles that are under contention here. (I'm trying to work out a proposal to address inclusion and appropriateness for these to bring these issues out of AT.) At least every term I can think of has a negative connotation within WP's framework even though they are not necessarily bad. "Synthesized topic" is at least a term that can have partial acceptance since we agree that some synthesis is necessary in WP to organize content, not to generate it. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the term Descriptive Title is perfectly clear. A descriptive title that is judgmental WP:NPOV is not a good descriptive title. A descriptive title that is judgmental because it clearly synthesizes WP:SYN multiple ideas into a new, judgmental conclusion that is not supported even remotely by sourcing is an even worse title. In both cases the solution is retitling via consensus discussion, not deletion. This policy may need expansion in ways that encourages consensus building to make judgmental descriptive titles less judgemental. Invoking the idea of WP:SYN in this titling discussion is risky since SYN is not allowed by policy (even though academically, we are all synthesizing as editors as we compile articles from multiple sources.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No no, I get your point per context of WP:Article Titles. And this may be the wrong page to be asking this question itself, but that question: how would you designate articles like "Criticism of Judaism" or "History of the steam engine"; this is not to question if they are acceptable, but the fact they aren't necessarily regular "topics" and necessitate this whole discussion on "descriptive titles" in order to figure out what URL they reside at. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What’s the upside to this proposed policy change?

Gavin and his supporters want to change the Descriptive titles policy to essentially require that the explicit wording of an article title be supported by reliable sources. How would this play out?

Article Management of Foo in the 20th century might go something like this. The complete content of the article on Management of Foo in the 20th century shows it is a notable subject, clearly supported with reliable sources. It meets WP:GNG in all respects. But Foo is complex and the study of its management in the 20th century is fragmented into coverage of Foobah, Fooboo, Foobut, and the controversial subject of FooBS. No one source uses the phase Management of Foo in the 20th century and some editors just don’t like the subject of FooBS being in an article in WP. They send it to AfD and cite the new Descriptive titles policy. WP:GNG doesn’t matter—this one has to go because the explicit wording of the title cannot be found in reliable sources.

Now for the upside. There is a reliable source that uses the phase: The folly of FooBS in the 20th century. An article is created that includes this source but covers FooBS in a very unflattering way and to the disparagement of Foo in general. Opponents claim The folly of FooB does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. Supporters claim otherwise as there is this other policy (policies supersede guidelines I presume): WP:Article titles that say a descriptive title supported by reliable sources is OK. This little silly scenario demonstrates the folly of any attempt to change the Descriptive titles policy (a naming convention) into something that just cannot be reconciled with WP:GNG. We don’t need multiple, conflicting notability policies and guidelines. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mike Cline — this post is too long. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Collaboration involves reasonable sized posts in which individuals can engage in dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop – my apologies for posting three separate sections at once. Since the statement too long implies some relativity, I am curious as to the following: Was each section too long or were three sections posted simultaneously too long? Maybe had your post been a bit longer there would be no confusion on that point. The relationship between post length and collaborative behavior is an interesting construct and begs the question: At what length (number of words, characters, thoughts, etc.) does a post become un-collaborative? More important to successful collaboration in my opinion is cooperative and effective communication. If my posts got my position across clearly as they were, they probably could have been trimmed in some way. If my posts did not get my position across, then there are two possibilities—I am a poor communicator, despite the number of words I used or I failed to use enough words to fully state my position. I will work on my communications skills.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to work through some worked examples, provided Mike is will to see both sides of the argument. The key benefit of this proposal is that would enable editors locked in disputes about descriptive article titles to develop a shared understanding of when and why their use is justified. I am trying to understand both supporters and detractors of this proposal, and I would ask my fellow editors to do the same.

The core principle which this proposal is based is that high quality sources are required to support the use of descriptive article titles. However, what we need to do first is to find out if any editor is opposed to this core principle, and if so, is there a workable alternative. Is there any editor opposed to this principle, and if so, why? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, in principle, your core principle that high quality sources are required to support the use of descriptive article titles is flawed because WP:Article titles is a naming convention not a notability policy. Your lead belies your intent: when and why their [descriptive titles] use is justified. As our naming convention policy allows the use of descriptive titles anytime an editor believes such a title is needed to convey the content of an otherwise notable article in a concise, non-judgmental way, the use of descriptive titles do not need to be justified, individual descriptive titles merely need to conform to our naming convention and not be judgmental.

You are passionate about this. Good for you, but changing our Article titling naming convention is not the appropriate venue for this idea. Your desire: that would enable editors locked in disputes about descriptive article titles …. to resolve those disputes would be much better served via an essay. One in which you provide your insights into the methodology by which editors locked in dispute over a given descriptive title could be resolve the dispute. No policy change is required. Your essay would be a good edition linked to the Article titling policy.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am calm and clear headed about this issue, as I see this as a solution to the problem of using descriptive articles that can't be agreed on by belief alone, particularly if that belief is challenged. How would you resolve such editorial disagreements, if not with reference to the sources cited in the article? What is the alternative? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolution of any issue on Wikipedia is done by consensus, period, given it is an open wiki with subjective judgements. Having sources helps your case in supporting your opinion in consensus discussions, but we don't immediately make decisions based on sources. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is done by consensus, except where there is a dispute, in which case the choice of title would have to be made with reference to what reliable, third party sources have to say. Editorial decisions are not made in a vacuum, and this is why high quality sources are needed, because descriptive article titles don't work with trivial coverage or mentions in passing. I really do not see any other alternative: where there is dispute, only a knockout argument in their favour, supported by high quality coverage, can win the day. There is really no alternative. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No wrong. Even when there is a dispute, we use consensus to determine the correct route, which may fail. Having sources is a way to convince others to consider your argument, and in many cases will assuredly "win" that dispute, but we have no "look I have a source, the dispute is over" type rules or procedures. Consensus drives everything. If you want something that is more objective that sticks to the sources for every single aspect, it's not what will be at Wikipedia until we remove open editing. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should drop the terminology "descriptive titles" from our discussion. We are talking about titles that, like the content of these same articles, are not supported by sources. In the sorts of articles under discussion, sources fail to support the overall scope of the article. The wording that should be included in any revised guideline should indicate that the title, like the content, is reliant on good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Which, once again, brings us to the question of how a string used as a title can be sourced. Strings that are useful as descriptive titles are not likely to be subject to substantial analysis, but rather will likely be used as passing references or as titles/subtitles, as the numerous examples in this discussion illustrate, or will be narrowly defined for a particular academic purpose. Thus far, no substantial guidelines as to how titles can be sourced has been presented, and absent such, we would be using a 'scratch and sniff' test in a policy, which make me uncomfortable. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Due to technical reasons with Wikipedia's software, titles can not be sourced directly (ie given inline citations)... but they can be sourced indirectly. To my mind, the title of an article or section should be supported by the content of the article or section in question... and we have multiple policies and guidelines that state how that content should be directly supported by reliable sources. This means that there should be a chain of connection between the title, the content and the sources. Thus, Titles should be indirectly supported by the sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In general I agree, and it seems that that is the only reasonable path we can take if we are to implement a policy regarding sourcing of titles. But is it then sufficient that the string used as a title occur in multiple reliable sources? Or is it a requirement that the string itself be the subject of detailed discussion in reliable sources? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither... the specific string does not need to be directly sourced (instead it needs to be indirectly supported by the chain of title-content-sources). We don't slavishly copy the sources... we follow the sources, using our intelligence and common sense. If a significant number of sources use a particular string to "name" the topic... then that "name" will be the obvious choice for the title. However, sometimes the sources will indicate a choice of "names"... This is where issues like precision, disambiguation, neutrality, etc come into play. We discuss the options and see which is best. If there is no single obvious "name", we discuss the situation and reach a consensus on a descriptive title that accurately reflects (but does not necessarily copy) the sources. The strings used by the sources inform us as to what our titles should be... but they don't necessarily dictate what they should be. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, do you see any advantage to the proposed policy at all? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of this proposal is that we follow the sources, for what would be the advantage of ignoring the sources? I am not saying that the proposal as written is the right way of addressing this, but the clear advantage of using high quality sources that support the article title is that they can withstand challenges, and that is the key to resolving, rather than extending, editorial disagreements. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A simple formula

Following on from the discussions above, perhaps we need to boil the proposal down to its bare essentials:

Article titles

Wikipedia does not take sides in determining what is a true, proper article title. What this encyclopedia does is to follow reliable, third-party sources as a guide to selecting the most ideal and least judgemental title. This is particularly true for the use of complex article titles: they should follow coverage from high-quality, third party sources that address the article topic directly and in detail, so that the use of a particular title can withstand challenge .

Perhaps if we start at brass tack level, then perhaps we can form some form of agreed approach to this issue. Any alternative wording suggested? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this still questions the appropriateness of a topic that is not directly addressed by sources (notability) along with title, particularly with that third sentence. "The choice of an appropriate neutral article topic should be guided by consensus with the aid of available sources." is sufficient. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A simple formula as stated is not so simple. It contains language that attempts to turn a simple naming convention policy into an exclusionary policy that can used to exclude content from the encyclopedia. It is not that we don’t need exclusionary policies, it is that we already have them elsewhere. The language that belies the stated intent of this proposal—to improve our titling policy to make it easier for editors to reach consensus on contentious descriptive titles. The real intent is to create an exclusionary policy that allows articles to be deleted based on their title, whether the article subject is notable or not. Our current titling policy lays out five characteristics of a good title—recognizable, easy to find, precise, concise, and consistent. Additional cautionary and technical criteria are laid out for a variety of situations and specific types of names. All the cautionary and technical criteria are subordinate the five criteria in the lead. The problem with the Simple Formula is that it introduces language that contradicts other WP policy and puts a criteria burden on the name that is simply not consistent with the overall naming convention. It says: Wikipedia does not take sides in determining what is a true, proper article title. What is a TRUE title? violates the very well established lead in WP:V – The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The word proper is very subjective. What are the characteristics of a proper or conversely an improper title? Today they are recognizable, easy to find, precise, concise, and consistent. The Simple solution proposes to establish a new, very restrictive meaning of what proper is. A meaning where being a proper title is now burdened with extraordinary verifiability requirements. The last sentence of the Simple solution is the most telling: This is particularly true for the use of complex article titles: they should follow coverage from high-quality, third party sources that address the article topic directly and in detail, so that the use of a particular title can withstand challenge. This sentence is so full of vagaries that its interpretation would be highly subjective. For example, the inclusion of the adjective high-quality in front of … sources introduces a criteria not contained in either WP:V or WP:RS. What’s the point other than to introduce a highly subjective criteria? What is a high-quality source versus a low-quality source? Who is the arbiter of quality? We use reliable sources in WP. We have good policies and guidelines related to reliable sources. Why do we need to introduce a new standard of high quality? …sources that address the article topic directly and in detail is problematic. What does directly mean? What does detail mean. What we do know what the proposal really intends they mean. They mean explicit,literal, and if the editor does not like the context of the detail, then it’s the wrong detail. This is borne out by the lengthy discussion above on the Criticism of foo issues. What escapes me in this discussion is why the current naming convention policy that contains the phrase related to the five criteria--However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another; in such situations, article titles are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources.—is not sufficient to ensure we create good article names? Why do we need to burden a pretty straight forward naming convention policy with a lot of subjectivity? A simple solution for what should really be the question on the table.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is not about deleting articles - that is a red herring. It is about article titles that are disputed, in which case only external sources can resolve a dispute between editors with differing opinions. If the article title in question is complex, and the dispute is complex, in which case only high quality sources will be capable of settling differences between rival editorial opinions. Having one set of editors saying that sources exist is really not sufficient to resolve, say, a dispute over the neutrality of an article title. Its a principle borrowed from WP:REDFLAG, so there is nothing subjective about it all. Content is challenged all the time, and so too can article titles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I must assume good faith here Gavin, but your countless boilerplate Delete votes in AfDs citing the very criteria your are trying to impose on our article naming convention--that unless a literal article title has been published in a context you agree with the article shouldn't exist in WP makes the statement above, ... not about deleting articles a bit hollow. IMHO--Mike Cline (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If I have voted to delete a topic, it is because it lacks notability - that is always the underlying issue with articles that become deletion candidates, even when other reasons are given. Furthermore, it is totally implausible to imagine that any article would ever be deleted because of a defective title, as the title is the easiest thing to change; rather, it is a lack of verifiable sources that is problematical. However, there are articles out there whose titles are not supported by any sources, and this is a symptom, rather than the cause, of those articles failing one or more of Wikipedia's content policies. Notability is an issue when descriptive article titles artificially restrict the scope of an article, such as Criticism of Judaism or Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, but we must have clear guidance on the use of descriptive article titles, as it is one side of the same bridge, so to speak, which it shares with the issue of a lack of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. Criticism of Judaism is determined by consensus to be a topic of inclusion in WP, but it has a bad title, that's the issue we're trying to address. That is an independent problem, and the implication of a bad title being indicative of a non-notable topic is false. It is certainly possible that a non-notable topic will result in a bad title, but it is neither the case that bad titles only are a function of non-notable topics, or that bad titles can never occur with notable topics. Tying notability and articles titles together is not acceptable. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Notability and titles are not and should not be tied together... however, I don't think this proposal is an attempt to tie notability and titles together. If we adopt it, a notable topic would still merit an article... just not necessarily one using a particular phrase as its title. It seems to me that what the proposal is attempting to do is tie Verifiability and titles together. I think this is the right idea. Article titles should be based on what the sources say ... but we also need to build in some degree of editorial flexibility and allow for consensus to resolve disputes. User:Blueboar 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you are continuing to discuss the objectivity ("least judgemental" is the quote above) of a title relating to otherwise notable material. pov-ers try to assign the most inflammatory title. If they "own" the article, that is pretty much it as far as "concensus" goes. You can't get the audience for an objective vote that you would for an afd, which the notability of the material may not allow. Student7 (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is not about exclusion and solely a naming convention policy, the policy already ties WP:V and titling together. The operative section: Deciding a Title is unequivocally clear: article titles are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources. Every editor knows what reliable sources means as it is a consistent thread throughout our policies and guidelines. Why do we need to introduce peacock concepts like true and proper, high-quality and vague and high-prone to subjectivity criteria like used directly and in detail into a naming convention that already lays out the basic criteria--recognizable, easy to find, precise, concise, and consistent and methodology--article titles are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources? Does the proposal contend that editors cannot come to consensus on an article title based on usage in reliable sources?--Mike Cline (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that in the dispute over a title that sources should be consulted as to contribute to that determination, particularly if the sources favor a title that is implicitly biased. But there are cases of titles that realistically are the best ones we can have for a topic and will never appear in sources due to several factors such as the notability of the underlying content (in the case of something like Criticism of Judaism). What Gavin is attempting to do in policy is assert that titles must come from sources, which immediately puts something like the unsourced overarching topic of "Criticism of Judaism" as against policy, when in fact that's a question of notability and a guideline-type discussion.

To be clear, I have no problem with recommending the use of sources to guide disputed titles, nor a stronger emphasis on the use of sources when the "best" title seems to be around a biased term. But I strongly object to any requirement that titles must originate from sources, as that implicitly connects notability to the issue, and conflates a generally-accepted policy with a highly contentious guideline. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But this policy already says that titles should come from sources (and has since its creation)... that is what underlies WP:COMMONNAME. The question is one of interpretation... how close to the exact wording in the sources do we have to be. Are we limited to the exact wording used in the sources, or are we free to create a title that is based on the language used in the sources. I think it is the latter. Even a descriptive title should be based on the sources (I talk about this in another thread using the concept of "indirect sourcing"). We also say that titles should be non-judgmental (the exception being cases where the sources indicate that a seemingly-judgmental title is actually the accepted proper name for the topic). That is reinforced at WP:NPOV. In the case of "Criticism of X" articles, we often fail on both counts... the sources do not support the use of the word "Criticism" and the word is judgmental. The topic of the article might be legitimate... but the title may not be. In most cases, policy indicates that a different title is called for.

Perhaps what is needed is a WP:TfD (Article Titles for Discussion) noticeboard, where editors can raise and discuss problematic Article titles? Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we create a "Article Titles for Discussion" page?

TfD, Blueboar, what a novel and innovative concept. It has merit. If it was modeled after AfD, had some rules and some agreed upon locus of outcomes (one of which would not be article deletion), we might engage more editors in article title consensus building. After a lively debate, an uninvolved admin would close the TfD with a decision as to what the title should be. It would be a nice complement to this policy and in the long term provide a much better record (than available via talk pages today) on the pros and cons of difficult article titles. I Like It. How do we get there?--Mike Cline (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes... moving from brilliant idea to implementation... that is always the tricky part isn't it! :>)

As a first step, I would suggest we run a RfC, outlining the proposal, and see if the idea has some initial support in the wider community. If it does, I would then try to involve some of the folks who set up and administer the other "X for Discussion" pages (such as WP:CfD). They will be able to advise us on how to set it up technically, and can tell us what has and has not worked for them (ie we can learn from their mistakes and successes). Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Woops... I just noticed that WP:TFD is taken (it's used for WP:Templates for discussion... so perhaps WP:ATfD (Article Titles for Discussion)? Not as snappy... but the same idea. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan (let me know how I can help). Gavin, Masem, Bus Stop, Student, et al. Are you all on board?--Mike Cline (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that approach as long as those discussions do not descend into "but is this a valid topic at all?" However, I would consider that some of the more common examples (eg what happens with "Criticism of Judaism" be brought back here as examples of common ways to avoid disputes. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the way that concern is avoided is to ensure it is just NOT one of the accepted outcomes. AfDs are where those issues get discussed and resolved, not at ATfd.

Exactly... the reply to "But is this a valid topic at all?" would be... "The validity of the topic is an issue for AfD, not ATfD." That said, I do expect that the outcome of discussions at ATfD would frequently impact the topic. Changing the title can often subtly change the scope of an article's content. As an example, consider how changing Criticism of Judaism to Critiques of Judaism would change the scope of that article. I expect this issue will often be the sticking point when it comes to contentious articles... but it is something that we will have to think about and discuss when an article title is raised at ATfD. Changing the scope of an article by changing the title might be a good thing... or, alternatively, it might be a bad thing. That will depend on the specifics of the article in question. My point is simply that it will be something I expect we would have to consider in many ATfD discussions. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Any ATfD process should be formulated to clearly separate acceptable outcomes of the discussion--no name change, name change to X, etc., and the potential consequences of that outcome. Those potential consequences, as you have described above involve policies beyond the scope of the naming convention, so they are not outcomes that should be part of this process. Can/should those potential consequences be discussed at an ATfD?--most definitely. Can they be imposed on an article as an outcome of the AFtD, most definitely not.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely make sure the instructions are clear that ATfD will not consider cases where the material of the article is challenged, with cases where that's clearly the intent speedily closed. I can understand that some changes of titles may be to refocus the article better, that's fine, but where the question of the article even being needed or the like is raised, that's the wrong venue. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How would this differ from WP:RM? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think RM's are more when the end point title is absolutely known for sure but there's some question if its needed. Here, it is more that the title is contested but the final title is unknown so a discussion is needed. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RM also considers and discusses alternatives. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I was also thinking that this would make people confused about where to go for a rename. So what would this page do that WP:RM doesn't?--WikiDonn (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Good points... I had forgotten all about WP:RM. To be honest, I do see a lot of overlap between WP:RM and ATfD. The difference is more one of emphasis in function and structure ... While RM does discuss alternatives, it mostly functions as a request board for non-controversial, uncontested move requests. ATfD would focus purely on contested ones. Also, the way RM is set up, you have to provide a proposed "target" name when forming the move request.... whereas at ATfD you would not... thus ATfD would be more for situations where someone thinks the current title is a problem, but does not necessarily have any suggestions as to what the title should be.

Are these differences enough to justify having two separate pages?... Perhaps not. Perhaps all that is needed is a shift in how RM functions. If we don't create a new page, I would prefer what we do have to be called "Article titles for discussion" over "Requested moves"... the latter sounds more like a place to request technical assistance than a place to raise and discuss problematic titles and policy issues. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm very interesting, well I have seen a few requests at WP:RM that look like: Example->????, and a few others that look like: Example->Example1 or Example->Example2 or Example->Example3 etc. Maybe since there are such few requests like this, it could be more easily implemented as a new section within WP:RM? --WikiDonn (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There are some technical non-contestable RMs where admin assistance is requested due to an existing page at the target location. But we can change everything there to be a section (like TFD/FFD) for each "request" with some templates to help identify the trivia ones that need admin help and the ones need more discussion. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we still "discussing"? I can appreciate that no one want to frame a change with one word not quite right and have it rejected, but it seems to me that we have been discussing for quite some time. Rather good discussion IMO. Will the quality improve if it is "separate?" Hard to believe. Student7 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what we do at WP:RM. There are discussions of TITLE → ? everyday (though just happens to be none today), for years; uncontroversial requests have their own small section and the rest of the page—the majority of the page—is already for controversial requests; we have constant discussions of multiple alternatives, raging debates occur. In short, I see nothing about this that would be an different from how WP:RM already functions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Accounting scandals – A case study in two policies

My apologies to Gavin for selecting an example article on a Yellowstone topic that he was unfamiliar with. That unfamiliarity put him at a disadvantage in this discussion of proposed changes to the Article Titling policy. So to rectify that, I’ve chosen another article Accounting scandals as a method to illustrate the extreme differences between current policy and the proposed changes. The Accounting scandals article is useful for this because it has several characteristics of the typical article that this proposal might impact. 1) The title is a descriptive title. 2) The article itself is a bit of a hybrid between a topical article and a list article. 3) The subject of the article Scandals in the field of Accounting is sufficiently covered by reliable sources to make it a notable subject. And interesting enough, it is a popular article (400-700 hits a day) and has survived without AfD since its initial creation in 2002. In other words, in its current form, the article is encyclopedic according to WP policies, guidelines and manuals of style.

Application of current policy to Accounting scandals
- The title is descriptive, but not judgmental. Although a scandal has negative connotations, it is a word that is routinely associated with certain types of events and activities. – meets WP:Article titles
- The lead is a bit verbose, not explicitly sourced, but there are sufficient sources cited in the article to support the notion that there are accountancy related scandals – violates the technical details of WP:LEAD but clearly meets the spirit of that MOS.
- Most, if not all of the individual scandal content is sourced with reliable sources and/or linked to more detailed articles. Content does not run afoul of WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV (Those intimately familiar with the topic may disagree, but a cursory review indicates the content is consistent with the topic and appropriately linked and sourced.)
- Next steps: Article improvement. Correct shortcomings with editing and discussion
Application of proposed policy to Accounting scandals
- The title is descriptive, therefore the explicit title—Accounting scandals—has to be justified with a reliable source that explicitly defines Accounting scandals. If no reliable source does that, then the assumption is that it is made up or OR. A cursory examination of the article’s current sources indicate none of them are about the explicit subject of Accounting scandals but are sources related to individual scandals and participants in those scandals. This type of source may exist, but it is not obvious from the current list of sources.
- The lead-in is completely un-sourced, therefore is assumed by the proposed policy that the description of Accounting scandals (its definition if you will) is made-up or OR, thus the title must be made up or OR.
- The fact that the overall topic is notable when viewed in current WP norms is irrelevant.
- Next steps: This article under the proposed policy presents editors with three alternatives:
  - Find a reliable source that discusses the explicit concept of Accounting scandals. Of course any editor can claim that the source is not reliable or does not actually define the concept. That is very subjective thinking, but as seen in the Criticism discussions above, can be challenging. Cite that source in the lead and rewrite the lead to parrot the explicit definition of Accounting scandals contained in that source.
  - Rename the article to a descriptive phrase that is explicitly contained in a reliable source as well as the re-write the lead to conform to the definition of the new title.
  - Nominate the article for deletion based on the policy that the article topic and title are OR. Given the nature of the proposed policy, there would be no defense available to this article other than finding a reliable source that everyone agrees explicitly discusses Accountancy scandals as a concept.

Because the current locus of WP articles have been named using a reasonable naming convention completely divorced from the concept that explicit titles must be reliably sourced or else they are OR, there are probably 1000s, if not 10s of 1000s articles whose title would not comply with the new OR burden. The net effect of changing a naming convention policy WP:Article titles into an exclusionary policy that puts extraordinary burden on editors to explicitly prove a specific descriptive title is not OR would cause chaos at AfD. Because OR is a core WP policy, any attempt to incorporate its principles into our article naming convention policy will be devastating to the encyclopedia. I trust this case study demonstrates that.

My apologies to Bus Stop for the length of this post. I trust he got this far to accept it. But IMHO, this is far too serious a topic for sound bites.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mike Cline — descriptive title is a meaningless designation. All titles are descriptive. When used, the term refers to content and sourcing. The lede is often involved because it is in the lede that oftentimes the parameter of the article is described. The articles under consideration may be well-sourced in specific subtopics covered. But they are often on topics that don't preexist outside Wikipedia, hence the inadequacy of the sourcing. In many instances, in my opinion, this is not problematic. But when editors object to the novel creation of outlines for articles I think deletion or real modification is very much called for. The new guidelines that we are considering, should curtail the use of or eliminate the designation "descriptive titles." The areas for investigation in the sorts of articles being considered are often very plausible, and those creating these sorts of articles may be surprised that what seems like a good idea for an article is not supported in its outline by sources. Bus stop (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My reference to Descriptive titles is a direct reference to a class of titles in the titling policy Wikipedia:Article_titles#Descriptive_titles_and_non-judgmentalism here and the section to which these proposed changes are being made. Assuming this wording was included in the policy through some sort of concensus, it hardly seems that the term is meaningless.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

All titles strive to be descriptive. The title, as well as the lede, strive to indicate the topic being addressed. "Non-judgmentalism" is a high ideal. All titles are expected to be nonjudgmental. Is it just descriptive titles that are expected to not be judgmental? The differentiation is made between "common name (taken from reliable sources) or a descriptive title (created by Wikipedia editors)" in the link to the policy that you provided. But a "common name" is also going to be "descriptive." The choice of one or the other is a simple editorial process resolved by consensus. There is no need for differentiation between common name and descriptive name under most circumstances. Editors may use that terminology in discussion but such a distinction is unlikely to prove to be a sticking point in resolving any such issue over choice of title, and the distinction between common name and descriptive name would likely be one of many factors entering into a discussion concerning choice of title. Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Bus Stop on this issue: if an article title is supported by external sources, more likely than not it is going to be the common name. But what is considered to be "common" by one editor is a matter of opinion: on closer examination, what seems like a good idea for an article may not be supported in its outline by sources, in which case we want to avoid using "descriptive" article titles which are based on the false presumption that they are.

Like the last example ("History of Wolves in Yellowstone"), the article "Accounting scandals" is a bad example for our discussions, in the sense that there are few sources in the article that support one title or another. Somewhere within these two articles, there exist notable topics which can be described with a "common" name that could withstand a strong challenge, and maybe the current titles can do that. In other words, if either article title were to be the subject of a challenge today, there are insufficient sources to support their respective article titles at this time. That does not mean that these are articles that should be deleted, or even renamed; rather, the sources cited in these articles don't provide any support for their current article titles at the present time. Despite this, I would not be bothered to present a challenge, because in my opinion, the titles make some sense and the topics are notable.

Where "descriptive" article titles are a problem is where they are used as a definition for a topic that does not exist in the real world. The content of most articles is what defines their subject matter, but not so with descriptive article titles. In the absence of sources that support the title directly and in detail, a descriptive article title is used to define the topic: this is a good example of the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. This proposal is designed to address this issue: the case where the title is being used to define a topic that does not really exist, such as a coatrack article, which is an extreme case in point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Mike Cline for picking a perfect example from my point of view. First off, without looking, I assume that the material should all (or mostly) be part of Wikipedia. I "don't like" the title which may make me guilty of "I don't like it", I forget the link name. It seems media-oriented, too "catchy", and too unobjective.

I would like to see an anti-Strunk and White, anti-Stylistic, (and therefore anti-"catchy") names for encyclopedic articles. I prefer the French method of naming. Noun first, adjectives later. Second worst would be "Scandals in the Accounting Field". This would suggest that Accounting does not own scandal, that other fields may have scandals as well. I think the word "scandal" is overused in society and very polemical as a result. It is finger-pointing (a media specialty). It is therefore not objective. "Scandal" is part of everyday life including our own lives. Pointing at someone else is unhelpful and pov and therefore unencylopedic. (Encyclopedic to document the results, but I'm not questioning the article). A better choice IMO would be "Irregularies in Accounting" or somesuch non-accusatory, un-media like title, that sounds like it will present the material objectively.

The selection of this title sounds like it was picked with a pov in mind. That is an objection that I hope will be taken seriously. Student7 (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to assume that if the wording of a title is copied from an outside source, it was meant to be descriptive, rather than polemic. People writing about this subject are in my opinion at least as apt to be writing from a pov as from a neutral perspective. In most controversial topics, one can find very polemic titles on each side. We do need to strive for the most neutral wording possible: it is the article which will give the information--the terminology I use (based on the literature of abstracting and indexing) is that the title and other metadata in an encyclopedia are intended to be indicative, not informative. Indicative means they tell you what sort of material will be found in the article, using routine conventions (for example, that an article titled with a person's name will be about their life and career). Informative means to summarize the contents of the article into a phrase, no matter how accurately. Our title is Thomas Edison, not Thomas Edison, the great inventor. (I'm talking here about an encyclopedia not a different sort of work. A book about Edison for children would appropriately have the second title. We avoid them because they inherently do haver a pov, even if the pov is unquestionable. We for example use "American Civil War", not "War of the Rebellion."

The question of what is the best indicative title can best be determined by what acknowledged neutral sources call the subject. In some cases there may not be any such, and then I think the best thing we can do is use analogies. Titles with negative implications are particularly troublesome. I'm not at all happy with "Scandals", which is both vague and negative. I;d much prefer more definite words like "Frauds", but then it really has to be limited to those so proven legally. For "Accounting Scandals", I'm not sure what else to call it, except perhaps the rather jargon-y term "Accounting Failures" -- but this could be confused with failures of accounting firms in the financial sense, which is related but not identical. I so far do not see any better suggestions.

Two positions I think wrong is that a title of an article needs an identical title used in an outside source, and that if we cannot find a perfect title we cannot write an article. Titles are metadata, not content. Just as we do use our own research to determine if something is notable, and we use our own research to see if a source is reliable, and we use our own research and judgment to see if an article is balanced, and we use our own research to see what form of a name is standard, so we can & should use our own research and judgement to determine the best title. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No one here is proposing that the article title should be taken verbatim from the sources cited in the article. However, if an article title is challenged, then an editor's own research is challenged: what is appears to be a good title to one editor may not be considered to be correct by another. This is precisely the issue that this proposal is seeking to address, rather than removing editorial discretion to choose title altogether. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure where we are here. I have run across user names like "Sh*t" (fake example). I do not expect good editing our of these people. Their chosen name is off-putting. Sometimes, joke named editors are quite responsible. But anyway, the name is sometimes (often) predictive. I suspect that initial notes left on the editors discussion page will reflect (attract) similarly themed comments. Same with articles IMO. The title is important. "Red Scare" may be historical but it attracts far more than its share of vandalism, because it is pov-named, never mind it's reliable antecedents, and often reliable contents. Student7 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Segmented article titles

I know "Descriptive article titles" are ones created by Wikipedia editors, because it is defined in our article titles policy, but what are "Segmented article titles"? -- PBS (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The term is used in WP:NPOV#Article naming when two topics are combined to form a new one, e.g. Sex and the law. Segmented article titles have a similar effect as descriptive ones, i.e. they narrow the scope of coverage that is relevant to the topic. Articles with Segmented and descriptive article titles seem to have share several characteristics that are problematical:

The lack a sourced definition, or any related coverage about the meaning or origin of the title;
Coverage in the article only mentions elements of the article title in passing;
There are lots of potential variations that could be used instead of the chosen title, e.g. sex crimes;
The is a lot of potential for content forks, i.e. Gender and crime/Sex and crime.

The problem with using titles like Sex and the law is that their use appears to be a symptom of a made up topic, in the sense that the restriction means there is little (if any) coverage supporting the article's subject matter, as coverage that addresses the subject matter inftered by the title is hard to find. Such articles share the same problem as a descriptive articles: the title effectively narrows the scope of coverage that is relevant, so if the topic has been made up, the lack of high quality coverage to support the topics notability, let alone support the chose article title, means that only original research or editorial opinion is capable of defining what the article is about . --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV says "Also discouraged are double or 'segmented' article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth)." I have never taken that to mean "The term is used in WP:NPOV#Article naming when two topics are combined to form a new one, e.g. Sex and the law. " I have taken it to cover names such as Danzig/Gdańsk or Gdańsk (Danzig) were there is disagreement about which is the common name and a slash is proposed so that both common names can be included in the article title. I would be interested to hear which interpretation most other editors who read this section think it means. -- PBS (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Take it from me, whether it is a forward slash or an ambersand, the effect is the same: two topics combined in one article. However, do you have a better example than the article Gdańsk? Many towns, cities and entire territories situated in Germany and Poland prior to 1945 have been renamed, but their article titles are not disputed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 03:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you're confusing the issue again with your pet peeve. Stop bringing up notability into the question of article titles and assume the content is accepted as to be included in WP. The question is specifically on titles with slashes or some other means to represent both "proper names" of a topic when there are multiple equivalent ones. --MASEM (t) 09:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry, Stroke City -- PBS (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The names given in NPOV were two names for the same thing separated by a slash. It was saying one shouldn't try just achieving NPOV by sticking in a slash between two names like Derry/Londonderry. That's a fairly nasty example and Wikipedia has after a long and tortuous process decided by consensus to use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county. That is not the same as Sex and the law. That describes a topic that isn't described by Sex and isn't described by Law. Putting in Sex/Law would be ludicrous. Dmcq (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So it seems that Masem's and Dmcq's understanding of the wording in the NPOV section is the same as mine. Gavin have you reconsidered your understanding of the NPOV sentence that includs the word segmented and that it specifically refers to discouraging "double ... article names" like "Derry/Londonderry" rather than prohibiting combining two topics to create a new article? -- PBS (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No I don't, because the evidence runs against this view. The article Derry and the article County Londonderry are not segmented in the way you suggest: each one has a single title which has been agreed by consensus. In my view, their titles reflect the sources cited in their respective articles, and are good examples of valid article names where segmented article titles have been correctly avoided, and high quality sources used to support the choice article title in each case.

In contrast, the article Sex and the law does not contain any source that indicates it is "a topic that isn't described by Sex and isn't described by Law" as Dmcq suggests; rather that is just his opinion, and is not supported by any coverage in the article. Most of the article is comprised of original research, and that part of the article that contains citations is about an entirely seperate topic, namely the Age of consent. Perhaps there are sources that could be found to support the article title and the notability of its subject matter in the future, but at the time of writing, there are none. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Sex and the law may be a fairly crappy article, but that doesn't mean the title is deprecated by the NPOV section about segmented titles. And your talk about Derry/Londonderry is ignoring that Derry/Londonderry was a proposed name of the article to resolve the dispute and rejected under the provisions about segmented names being deprecated. If you will notice Derry/Londonderry is not the name of the article about the city of Derry because NPOV deprecated such names whereas Sex and the Law still exists unaffected by that provision. Dmcq (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

At least you accept that high quality sources are present in the article Derry that support the title, whereas they do not in the article Sex and the law. I think you will find what is and is not a sex crime is very much an issue over at WP:NPOV, because sex crime is a good example of a contentious label, which is what this proposal is trying to steer clear of; I don't see how Dmcq can claim that the article "Sex and the Law" exists unaffected by WP:NPOV#Article naming, given just how poorly contentious labels are regarded. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether Sex and the Law is a well written article or not or even if it is notable has nothing at all to do with WP:NPOV#Article naming. I really can't see the relevance of contentious label either. The discussion in case you've forgotten is about what is a segmented article title. That also has nothing to do with whether Derry is a well founded name. The issue is whether Sex and the Law is a segmented article title. I believe everyone agrees Derry/Londonderry is a segmented article title. Dmcq (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point: my contention is that Sex and the law is an article title that is not supported by any of the sources in the article, and is therefore inappropriate. Although article title and notability are two sides of the same bridge, so too speak, it is the article title that is problematical, because it restricts the scope of the article to such an extent that it would be very difficult to find any source, let alone high quality sources, in support of its title. As regards the notability of the topic, perhaps it can be improved and retitled to demonstrate the topic's notability at some point in the future. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Example: Sex and the law

I would have thought it obvious that Sex and the law is a segmented article title, whereas Derry is not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry is the one that is segmented. I hven't seen anyone agree with you that Sex and the law is a segmented article title or is meant by WP:NPOV#Article naming. I would have thought they would given some such example if they meant things like Sex and the law. Dmcq (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the mathematician, so if you can't establish that "Sex and the law" is an article title that is segmented into two parts, then, I don't suppose anyone can. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall quote the relevant part here:

"If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also discouraged are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth)"

'Sex' and 'Law' are not alternative names for the topic 'Sex and the law'. The 'and' in 'Sex and the law' means both together at the same. The and has not been put in to avoid a conflict over which title to use. Derry/Lonndonderry was an attempt to avoid conflict over the name to use. It does not matter if you choose to think of Sex and the law as segmented, it does not satisfy the " in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth)" interpretation so this section of the policy is inapplicable. Dmcq (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said, I suppose another way to put it is that "and" does not equal "or". --Nuujinn (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand what being said in the policy, but can't understand your line of thinking, even though I am trying to look at this from both sides.

The name of the article Derry is clearly not segmented, unless one proper name ≡ one segment. The title Derry/Lonndonderry does not exist in Wikipedia. I don't know of any other towns that have segmented article titles, but even if some exist, I am not sure why Philip Baird Shearer thought Derry was a good example of one.
As regards the article Sex and the law, if this is not a segmented article title (two nouns/two topics ≡ two segements), then what sort of title is it?

IMHO it is a segmented article title, because its scope includes both the topics Sex and Law as illustrated by the Venn diagram shown in the previous section, whereby two notable topics intersect to create a madeup topic. The reason why such a topic can be classed as being madeup is that it is impossible to determine whether or not undue weight is being given to the sexual or the legal element. By contrast, a descriptive article title is illustrated by the diagram in this section, where as sex crime (shorthand for "sexual crime") does.

Please enlighten me, as I am not following you, as I am not sure that "Sex and the law" falls into the descriptive category.

Maybe the example given in the section WP:NPOV#Article naming is a bit misleading, but I don't think its scope is restricted to articles that contain backslashes any more than its application is restricted to the shape of the earth. Perhaps this is the source of misunderstanding? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I clearly showed you Derry/Londonderry. You typed two ns in the London bit. The point though is that the title Derry/Londonderry was clearly a title that was deprecated as a segmented title with two alternative titles. The examples in WP:NPOV#Article naming are very clear and consistent with the talk about alternative titles. Law and Sex would not be alternative names for Sex and the law. An example not showing slashes was shown but it showed two alternative article names one in brackets. The slash in Derry/Londonderry is a forward slash not a backward slash. Dmcq (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin you wrote "No I don't, because the evidence runs against this view." But I think that the evidence points in the opposite direction as it is the reason why names such as Derry/Londonderry and Danzig/Gdańsk exist as redirects and not article titles! Another examples are Liancourt Rocks where Dokdo/Tokto was rejected, and gasoline/petrol and Aluminium/aluminum. AFAICT all before the "segmented" sentence was added to WP:NPOV. The NPOV section on article naming was created on 13 May 2007 The "segmented" sentence was added on 15 May 2007. The discussion on the NPOV talk page about these changes NPOV & naming conventions was it seems to me about names like Derry/Londonderry, I see no evidence of your interpretation in those discussions. -- PBS (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can possibly fail to see that "Derry/Londonderry" (which is deprecated) is a different sort of title than "Sex and the law" (which is not). (Incidentally, we do sometimes use titles of the first type - Biel/Bienne; Alexandra Feodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia); Chris Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes - I don't like them, but it could hardly be claimed that they violate the spirit of neutral point of view.) "Sex and the law" is a descriptive title, and as such I don't see any need for it to appear in that exact form in sources (though of course if there's a way of saying the same thing which does appear in sources, that would most likely be a preferable title.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Going back to point 1 above, I am still not getting it. As PBS points out, Derry/Londonderry and Danzig/Gdańsk exist as redirects and not article titles. So I don't see how you could claim that Derry and Gdańsk exist as segmented articles because they are not segmented. If you are referring to the redirects themselves, that is a red herring. As far as I am aware, there are no inclusion criteria for redirects: they are used arbitrarily all over Wikipedia. The existence of redirect does not negate the fact that the titles of the articles themselves are not segmented. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As simple as possible: Segmented titles are titles where there is "X/Y" where X and Y are the exact same term for the same topic (as the cases given above). "Sex and the law" is a case of "X and Y" where X and Y are very disparate topics regardless of name. --MASEM (t) 09:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If that were true, then surely the example Round Earth/Flat earth is not a segmented article title, since it two comprises of two distinct topics? Whether they are are disparate or not is surely just a matter of opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Round Earth/Flat earth" may not be the best example, (I think this conversation has highlighted that, and I am of a mind to change the example to Derry/Londonderry as it is clarified by Stroke City the only problem is Derry, Londonderry fits the Wikiepida Ireland compromise for Stroke City and could confuse the issue) but can you accept the consensus here -- and in archived NPOV section when the sentence was introduced -- is at odds with your interpretation of the sentence? -- PBS (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No I can't, for reasons given in points 1 & 2 above:

It is quite frankly absurd to argue that Derry is a segmented article title when it is obvious that it isn't. Londonderry/Derry, Derry/Londonderry and Danzig/Gdańsk are merely redirects that fall outside the scope of Wikpedia content policy, and because they are not mainspace articles, they are not really relevant to this discussion or this guideline. I think you have to concede that this is the correct view. Whether the title "Derry, Londonderry" will be adopted in the future is a matter of speculation at this time.
As regards Sex and the law, I can concede there seems to be some reluctance to accept that this is an example of a segmented article title, despite the fact that it comprises of two distinct segments, the order of which could be reversed without loss of meaning. I think you have to concede that that it is an article title that comprises of two segements seperated by the word "and", which is not far removed from using a forward slash in the example Round Earth/Flat earth.

If you can come up with another mainspace article that you believe to be segmented, perhaps that might be a compromise. However, there are lots of examples of segmented titles that employ "and" (e.g. Sex and intelligence, Race and intelligence), whereas the use of the forward slash is relatively uncommon.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, there are not many example of such names because the consensus is not to use them! I have given you example such as Derry were it was discussed and rejected. That there are lots of names that you are identifying that you think fits the description -- that no other editor who has commented in this section agrees with you -- is evidence that you do not have a consensus for your interpretation of the sentence. -- PBS (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording can be tightened up. Gavin is saying basically that any title consisting of parts is a segmented title for the purpose of the section and so deprecated, and does not acknowledge the intent implied by 'alternative article name' or by the examples which show alternate article names in one title. Anyone like to use some other wording which is clearer and then we can have a consensus for its inclusion? That should put Gavin's whole segmented titles business to rest. Personally I'd simply remove the word... Okay i've put in a verison removing the 'segmented', I guess Gavin will object, shall we have other edits and then an RfC? Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done. Now we don't have an ill-defined term suffering from perceived policy burdens. The Annelids have been redeemed.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of other examples of segmented article titles that are problematical, in the sense that there are no sources to support them: Sex and intelligence, Race and intelligence, to name but a few. Clearly their use is widespread, and they are capable of being disputed. If Sex and the law is not a segmented article title, then what is it? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could define exactly what you mean by "segmented"? I really do not understand what you mean by it in this context. I would think in the case of both Sex and the Law and Race and Intelligence, that particular intersection of topics could be substantially sourced. Is it your contention that article material covering research in the race and intelligence belongs in one for the other article, or both? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think our discussion about "Segmented article titles" is at an end as it was generated from Gavin's understand of a phrase in NPOV which all others editors of this conversation have taken to mean some thing different. As the phrase had now been removed from the NPOV policy, we are we are back to discussion "Descriptive article titles" and as such these discussions should be held under a new section heading. -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring the fact that my arguments are valid. Sex and the law is definitely an article title that is segmented. Just because WP:NPOV#Article naming does not name it as such, that does not mean it does not apply by analogy. If it is not a segmented article title, then what form of article title is it? No one has answered this question so far.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps others, as I do, simply don't have a problem with titles such as Race and Intelligence and thus see no reason to characterize them in a particular way. To my way of thinking such a title is no more and no less restrictive than New Zealand general election, 1879, which restricts the scope to general elections, held in New Zealand, in 1879. I believe that Venn diagram would have three circles and a small triangularish shape in the center. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with titles that can be supported by high quality sources: this is what this proposal is about. New Zealand general election, 1879 the same. Its segmented article titles such as Sex and the law which are not are the problem. This proposal is not attempting to throw the baby out with water. Rather it is attempting to differentiate valid article titles from invalid ones on the strength of coverage from reliable sources.

Segmented article titles have always been discouraged because they cause problems with the Mediawiki software on which Wikipedia runs. You can't actually create an article that incorporates a forward slash, since the forward slash is used by Mediawiki to denote hierarchies. Take Gdansk/Danzig for instance - the software interprets Danzig as being a sub-article of Gdansk (just like talk page archives - /Archive1, /Archive2 etc). So there is no point in discussing NPOV as it relates to such article titles, because there's a fundamental technical reason why they shouldn't be used in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's good to know. Gavin, we've discussed a number of titles about which various editors disagree as to whether they can be sourced, and I am still unclear as to what "supported by high quality coverage" means in this context. For example, Race and Intelligence is a title I think is easily sourced, if only by Gould's Mismeasure of Man. I also think Criticism of Judaism can be sourced as a title, although I readily admit there are content issues in the article (but that's another topic). As I've said, without guidance as to what it means to source a title adequately, I do not see any value to this, since I fear it will just be an anchor of pettifoggery in controversial discussions. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not true "You can't actually create an article that incorporates a forward slash, since the forward slash is used by Mediawiki to denote hierarchies. Take Gdansk/Danzig for instance - the software interprets Danzig as being a sub-article of Gdansk" it has been turned off in article space. So Gdansk/Danzig is an article not an a subpage of Gdansk. But it has not been turned off for the talk pages so for example have a look at the talk pages for AC/DC, Talk:AC/DC is a subpage of Talk:AC -- PBS (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why Gdansk/Dansk is necessary. Nor Derry/Londonderry. They seem to be redirected anyway. Why not redirect them individually? I can appreciate that the selection of a single title can be a problem at times. Hopefully not "solved" by concatenation.

And the original example of "S.. and the Law" (on kiddie-proof computer here! :) seems a bit too vague. Like a book title. I am not totally convinced that it can't be a legitimate macro subject though. I does lack precision. Tends to fall into the category "The title means what I want it to mean," which seems unfortunate. How do you write a credible, comprehensive scholarly lede for that sort of an article? Student7 (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive article titles

What we should be doing is throwing out the labels "descriptive title" and "segmented titles." Wiki policy is clear — "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" (WP:RS). All arguments about the need for these titles, not supported by sources, are false arguments. That is because every argument has one thing in common — the argument that eliminating such titles has the consequence of eliminating material from Wikipedia. False. At bottom the most significant issue being discussed is the issue of how Wiki should be organized. Wikipedia fundamental principles dictate that an article must be constructed entirely of sourced material. Fundamental Wikipedia policy does not make exceptions for titles. A title is generally called upon to express the scope of an article. That scope has to be found in reliable sources or Wikipedia should not have an article on it. That scope is an organizing principle for this project. The scope of articles represents the building blocks of the project as a whole. WP:VER says that "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source..." What this means is that anyone can title an article any way they like. Call it a "descriptive title" and/or call it a "segmented title." But when it is challenged there should be no defense in those labels ("descriptive title" and "segmented title") because those sorts of titles are in contravention of fundamental Wiki policy. One should not be allowed to take cover behind those sorts of labels. They are flawed vis-a-vis fundamental Wikipedia policy. When challenged, an editor should be required to show good quality sources supporting specifically the scope implied most obviously by the title. Failing this, an editor would have no alternative but to find an alternative organizing principle under which to get that material into the project. That may require more than one article in place of the one article that they originally had in mind. That may require the cross-linking of two or more articles. Two articles can be written at the same time with mindfulness of how they relate to one another. Explicit notes can be placed in articles such that the reader is directed to the other article(s) for material that the editor feels is closely related to the article at hand. Ultimately, of course, these would be separate articles. Other editors could conceivably come along upset your careful work. That is what Wikipedia is about. It is not Encyclopedia Britannica. It is not supposed to be written by experts. It relies on the miracle of many. But the miracle of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is reliant on the quotidian miracle of sources. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is governed by consensus, not by the policies. The policies are supposed to describe what happens. What happens is that descriptive titles are allowed every day and pass through AfD unscathed. So if you think there is a problem with WP:VER then you think WP:VER needs to be changed. Dmcq (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Bus stop, all well and good, and you make some valid points, although I do not agree with everything you've said. To me, tho, the critical issue is that, as far as I can see, there is no consensus as to what constitutes reliable sourcing of a title (as opposed to material in an article). And obviously, this does not answer my questions to Gavin, although I would welcome your input as to what "segmented" mean in terms of titles. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Titles are governed by naming conventions. Subjects are covered by notability standards. Article titles and article subjects (topics) are not the same. There is no requirement to source a title, nor hopefully there ever will be.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree, but there has been much talk of how titles should be supported by sources. I am still unclear about how that would work in practice. Nuujinn (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus and naming conventions do not operate in a vacuum: they must be validated by some form of external source if they are challenged. Descriptive and segmented article titles are more or less the same thing (so we can ignore which one is which for the moment) in terms of the restriction which the title places on the scope of coverage. Where there is sufficiently high quality coverage to support a restictive title, all well and good, because any challenge to the choice of article title can be validated by sources independent of editor opinion. However, where there is no coverage to support an article title, then it is likely to be challenged, and some explanation of where the title originated from and why that particular title was chosen must be given. If there is no coverage from reliable sources to support a particular article title, then it is unverifiable. We can't have an elite band of editors choosing article titles that are unverifiable by simply saying "it is the the consensus". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia where anyone can choose an article title provided there are sources to support that choice, since consensus can only be built where the choice of title is verifiable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin please stop using "segmented article titles" it does not bring clarity to the conversation. -- PBS (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop WP:AT is the policy that covers article titles, WP:V is one of three policies that cover article content. See the lead of WP:AT "[article titles] ... should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies". So please do not confuse content policy with the naming policy. -- PBS (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, no, Gavin, we can totally do that. That's the beauty of consensus-based decision making.
The vast majority of article title debates are ad hoc decisions that we have to make because there is no relevant rule. The arguments generally fall into one of two categories: "what is the best description for this subject?", where verifiability isn't an issue because we're summarizing a thing with no standardized name (e.g. Entering heaven alive, which has peacefully proceeded through about a dozen titles in its history), or "which set of nationalistic edit warrers will get themselves blocked first, ending this baffling argument over what to call that pile of rocks?" --erachima talk 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The coverage of a descriptive article title is restricted in scope, e.g. ~~A ("Criticism of Judaism") ⊆ B ("Judaism")~~ "Jan Smuts in the South African Republic" ⊆ "Jan Smuts"

Let us see what we can agree upon. Is there anyone who objects to WP:SUMMARY articles as a concept?

If not then I do not see how we can avoid descriptive names, if the split is in part dependent on the size of a section. For example Wikipedia has a detailed biography on Jan Smuts, I see nothing wrong with descriptive titles such as Jan Smuts in the South African Republic and Jan Smuts in the Boer War. --PBS (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look and the first has sources but a bit different like "Jan Christian Smuts: The Conscience of a South African", the second is obviously a notable topic but somehow the article itself has no sources and should definitely be fixed. Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not object to WP:SUMMARY... but WP:SUMMARY does not tell us how we organize a summary and entitle it. I would assume that there are reliable sources that discuss Jan Smuts during various eras of South African history. Not necessarily using the exact words "Jan Smuts in the Boer War" or "Jan Smuts in the South African Republic"... but in a way that would substantiate the use of those titles. If not, then we should not be summarizing the life of Jan Smuts in that way (but should instead summarize it in a different way... one that would use different titles... Jan Smuts in the 1890s, for example). In other words... even in a Summary article, the title should be based upon the sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We have worked through several examples of descriptive and segmented article titles, and found some articles to be supported by high quality coverage, and some not. If the article title is supported by high quality coverage, then its not a problem. If the article title is not supported and becomes the subject of an editorial dispute, then these type of article titles (what ever you want to call them) are a problem, and this proposal provides a solution: high quality coverage is the trump card. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Gavin and Bus Stop do not understand the need for an Article Naming convention that must be unencumbered by strict sourcing guidelines. Take Goose Lake for example. Lots of Goose Lakes out there, but I bet you will not find one source, no matter how hard you look that refers to Goose Lake in Anchorage, AK as Goose Lake (Anchorage). Yet Gavin and Bus Stop would contend that because the exact, literal, letter by letter title of the article cannot be found in a reliable source, WP shouldn't have an article on it despite the fact that the subject of Goose Lake in Anchorage is notable. This continued attempt to change our Article Naming convention (which already has provisions for titles based on reliable sources) into a content policy is getting tedious. WP:Article titles is a naming convention, nothing more, nothing less. Change WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR if you want to change our content policies.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I will not attribute intent or speak for them, but I will point out that both have also objected to Criticism of Judaism, which does occur as string in many reliable sources. FWIW. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is why you have objected to this proposal: it occurs to me that a "string" (I presume this to mean a mention in passing) is less than the high quality sources than this proposal demands, and this seems to be at the root of your fears for the article. Personally, I would much rather dress in the splendour of high quality sources, than wear the "string" vest of poor quality sources.

In answer to Mike Cline, I think that the example of Goose Lake (Anchorage) is an over-simplification of the issues that this proposal seeks to address, but we can examine the article if you insist. We have been through a comprehensive example (Climategate - see above) of how consensus was reached over the title for the article Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Editors agreed on a choice of article which was supported by the sources, but which also was the least judgemental. They did so on the basis that the use of descriptive or segmented article titles in Wikipedia requires high-quality coverage from reliable sources that address the article topic directly and in detail. Consensus was reached by evaluating the sources, not by the opinion of one editor, or even the opinion of one particular editor, Jimmy Wales, whose opinion is held in high esteem. Rather, it was made after an evaluation of all the high quality coverage, and which non-judgemental title best fitted those sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, they decided the article title on the basis of WP:AT, WP:NPOV, and WP:CON? --erachima talk 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes they did, with more than a little help from the sources, along the lines of this proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, by string, I mean a text literal, that is to say that the actual phrase occurs in a source, in the sense used in information technology. There are myriad reliable sources in which the literal text string "Criticism of Judaism" occurs. Some of them are better than others, but there are plenty of good source that use that phrase. For example, A feminist companion to reading the Bible: approaches, methods and strategies, by Athalya Brenner, Carole R. Fontaine on p.202 contains: "Legitimate criticism of Judaism is concerned with the continuing vitality of the jewish faith community. It is well-balanced, aware of the motivation, mindful of the context and willing to engage in dialogue. It maintains a basic level of respect and explicitly resists being used to justify hatred and injustice against this oppressed group." This is, of course, what I've referred to as a narrow academic definition. And to be perfectly clear, I admire what you are trying to accomplish, but I do not think this is the best way to do it. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is one definition, but it is not actually cited in the article. Why is that? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Example: Jan Smuts in the Boer War

Gavin you wrote "If the article title is supported by high quality coverage, then its not a problem." A google Book search of ["Jan Smuts" "Boer War"] returns 2,730 results, not surprising as he was a Boer commando leader who lead the deep commando raids into the Cape Colony. There are hundreds of reliable sources (I have no idea why they have not been added to the article), but there are probably non for the specific title descriptive title being used, but I understand from what you have written above, you do not mind descriptive titles per se only if they are disputed. Is that correct? In the case like Jan Smuts in the Boer War where the are several 1,000 books on the subject (but none using that name), would that meet your "If the article title is supported by high quality coverage, then its not a problem."?

Gavin, assuming that in principle descriptive names are acceptable to you, as descriptive names have much stricter NPOV restrictions on them than do article titles, what else it is that you think is necessary to add to the policies on descriptive titles? As to your comment "high quality coverage is the trump card" how do you square that with the article titles that are fully supported by sources, and still become a subject of dispute eg Liancourt Rocks, Ireland/Republic of Ireland Danzig/Gdańsk, etc clearly high quality coverage is NOT always the trump card or a magic bullet when it comes to naming articles (particularly if they involve nationalism). -- PBS (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well put, although I expect there will always be disputes regardless of the quality of policy and guidelines. Gavin, the reason the definition above is not yet used in Criticism of Judaism is because I'm waiting for the outcome of this discussion to continue editing that article. I've referred to this type of use of the string "Criticism of Judaism" a number of times, however. In summary, I would say in regard to pretty much every descriptive title:

For some, there are reliable sources that refer to the article's subject matter by using the string directly (eg. "Criticism of Judaism" and Jan Smuts in the Boer War). The string may only seldom occur, but the thing it denotes receives significant coverage.
For some, there is little or no use of the string in reliable sources, but the article's topic is documented in reliable sources (a suggested example is I believe Goose Lake (Anchorage).
For some, there is an academic definition in a reliable source, which is designed to narrow scope, such as the one I provided above for Criticism of Judaism.

Now, as we have said for some time, if the content isn't notable, the article should not exist. But if the article's title is in question, what guidelines can we provide as to what would count as coverage in a reliable source? Nuujinn (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that question is already adequately covered in the key paragraph of Deciding A Title. When a title is under question, article titles are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources. We all know what WP:V and WP:RS say about reliable sources, so why does this policy have to introduce additional verbage about coverage in reliable sources?--Mike Cline (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I think we should deal with one article at a time, so lets look at Jan Smuts in the Boer War. For the sake of argument, lets pretend it is a fully sourced article.

I think this is a good example of a segmentented article title, in the sense that the topic straddles two distinct topics, namely Jan Smuts and the Second Boer War. If it was fully sourced article, you would have to ask "what topic or topics are being addressed?" The stock answer would be that topic of the article is as the title describes, but I think the title hides a particular issue we have not discussed up to now.

I think the problem with segmented article titles that you have revealed is the issue of undue weight: which topic segment takes precedence in the article? Jan the man, or the Boer war? I have my doubts about the validity of this article, and reason is that this goes back to my earlier point about the restrictions which segmented and descriptive article titles place on the scope of the subject matter. In the article Jan Smuts, the focus of the article is Jan the man, and his personal involvement in war. In the article on the Second Boer War, Jan Smuts is just one of many important participants. The effect of the restrictions placed upon the scope of coverage is that the article title Jan Smuts in the Boer War gives undue weight to Smuts role in the war over and the other participants. Therefore the article fails WP:NPOV, and its segmented article title is the figleaf that hides this fact. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, Gavin, if I didn't know you better, I'd assume the above was a joke. Jan Smuts' role in the Boer War happens to be a notable topic, and there is no concept of undue weight between pages on Wikipedia, only within pages, and the base article here is Jan Smuts, not Boer War, and articles of this sort are dictated by summary style (a guideline which, to be fair, you have never had a good handle on). Do you also believe Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1831 to 1834 is an invalid article subject because it gives insufficient focus to the life of Abraham Lincoln from 1831 to 1834? --erachima talk 12:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that this sweeping generalisation is supported by any articles. I had a look around for similar articles about Smut's contemporaries, such as Michael Collins (Irish leader) and the Irish War of Independence, and found that segmented article titles are not normal in Wikipedia; there are no segmented article titles relating to Queen Victoria or George V, despite the fact that their are all highly notable statesmen and women. With the exception of this article, I think it is standard practice to discuss the involvement of individual persons in historic events within the context of a biographical article that covers all of their life in order to avoid conflict with WP:UNDUE. I think you have to concede that the rationale behind the article Jan Smuts in the Boer War is more likey to be hero worship rather than providing balanced coverage of his life.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So not only do you mount frivolous arguments, disregard consensus, and ignore facts, but when their frivolousness is pointed out you attempt to defend them by accusing other editors of bias. Brilliant. This is getting beyond mere unhelpfulness and into obstructiveness, Gavin. --erachima talk 14:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In fairness I think you are ignoring the merit of argument: most biographical articles deal with the life events of their subject matter in one article. For instance, there is no such article as Roosevelt and the Big Deal, Hitler and World War II or Stalin and the Purges. I think you will have to concede that they are effectively outlawed by WP:UNDUE. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no merit to your argument. You do not understand WP:UNDUE. You do not understand WP:SS. There are numerous biographies which encompass multiple articles (I mentioned two above, Joseph Smith and Abraham Lincoln). You are obstructing progress, refusing to listen, and being a textbook example of the tendentious editor. Your opinions have been duly considered, and rejected as unworkable, by every other editor in this discussion save one. The community has spoken, Gavin, this issue has been discussed, and consensus is against you. I am archiving this discussion. Good day. --erachima talk 14:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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.