Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive. Precision and accuracy

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

Giving context to the title[edit]

I think that in naming an article the criterion should not only be that we should avoid a name that also has another meaning. I think it should also be such that if you see the title isolatedly, for example in Recent Changes, that, as much as possible without making the name too long, it should give an idea what the article is about.

In the case of name of a band, album, book, movie it would be very helpful to put "(band)", etc. at the end of the article name, for those who do not know that it is a band, etc.

In the case of a flight one may guess that it is about a crash, otherwise it would not be worth an article. Therefore, leaving out the word "crash" is strange, but not a problem. However "American Airlines flight 11" can better be renamed "American Airlines flight 11 (WTC attack)" or something like that. It is much more descriptive: almost everybody has heard about this attack but many people (at least outside the US) do not bother to remember flight numbers. --Patrick 11:40 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

I respectively disagree - names are used to distinguish one thing from another. Any more information goes in the article. "Use common names of persons and things" supersedes precision. Otherwise we would have London (England, Europe) and bios with 5 or 6 name parts instead of the most common two or three. See also Wikipedia:disambiguation. In short, there is no reason to disambiguate a term unless there is a valid naming conflict with another encyclopedic term and there is a reasonable ambiguity between the topics. Mars for example. --mav 11:53, 23 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]
You did not comment on my last sentence: Almost everybody has heard about this attack but many people (at least outside the US) do not bother to remember flight numbers. --Patrick 12:16 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)
That's why the first line of American Airlines flight 11 goes:
I reckon that anyone searching for relevant terms should find the article because of the info in the article, or else will find it from the comprehensive page on the attack itself. --Martin 12:27, 23 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]
So far as the title actually having any meaning to anyone outside the US, Patrick is absolutely correct. I must have clicked on that article three or four times over a week or two after seeing it in Recent Changes (because I am interested in aeroplanes and airlines) before I finally learned to remember that it's just yet another one of the ubiquitous WTC articles and is thus best left to those who are interested in such things. Now I am no doubt the exception, and the opposite-way-round reasoning would apply to most people, but either way the present title is unhelpful and the (WTC attack) suffix would make it much more useful. As to whether that is sufficient reason to change it, or whether it is better to retain it as-is on some sort of aesthetic grounds, I don't offer an opinion. However, I gather that the article, is not about flight ... er whatever number it is, but about the WTC attack. Surely an entry ought to have a title that is meaningful? --Tannin 12:31 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)
They are about the most famous flights by those names and they are meaningful. The argument about establishing context with the title is bogus - just because somebody doesn't know who Oscar Wilde is, doesn't mean that we should insert extra information in the the title. All that does is make it more difficult to link to and serves as a bad example to newcommers on how to name pages. Read our naming convention on simplicity. Context and such is established within the article. --mav 07:00, 24 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]

In summary[edit]

Adding context to article titles: eg American Airlines flight 11 (WTC attack)

  • +: makes more sense if you see a title in recent changed
  • +: more descriptive

Keeping titles as common as possible (but no more)

  • +: Context can be given within the article
  • +: searches should pick up info from the body of an article, or from category pages
  • +: makes linking easier
  • +: makes our naming conventions clear

Summary added by Martin 22:17, 6 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, I just contradicted myself. I guess it comes down to having the simplest possible title that is not misleading. It all depends on the particular example. Take Korean Air flight KAL-007. That one is not confusing, because it was major headline news in its own right. American Airlines flight 11, on the other hand, was just yet another part of the WTC attack, and should be named that way. --Tannin 11:48, 7 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile phone[edit]

I've asked the same question on the talk page. Shouldn't the title be mobile telephone? --Cacophony 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Mobile phone should be renamed to Mobile telephone you can take that up at WP:RM - the procedure for renaming with approval is explained on that page. Note however:
If you think this a matter of British vs. American English (I didn't think so, Americans would say "cellular phone" I believe) - in that case best also have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. --Francis Schonken 20:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Close, but IME(xperience), cell phone predominates, cellular telephone is ponderously formal and proportionately rare, and cellular phone and cell telephone would be clear but otherwise unthinkable mixes of formality and informality.
--Jerzy•t 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization differences (and apparent contradiction)[edit]

I'm trying to sort out lame edit war at Iron maiden, and hoped to find the basis in this policy... and I found it less clear than desireable. The edit war in question revolves around the question where the iron maiden (torture device) should reside (see Talk:Iron maiden#Requested move). Having closed that RM, I concluded that the band is the primary topic for "iron maiden" (despite the older meaning of the phrase). Thus, "When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?" dictates that iron maiden should redirect to the band.

I thought that having different articles at titles with slight capitalization difference is frowned upon (with possible exception of acronyms, like Pin vs. PIN). "Special" naming conventions like WP:NCF and WP:NCTV already state something similar, e.g:

When there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with an existing Wikipedia article, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is the primary topic for that name, title the film article like this: Film Title (film).

However, this very page provides an opposite example: Red meat vs. Red Meat. I think that the latter title is inadequate, and that it should be moved to Red Meat (comic). But in general, I think this page should be clearer on the topic (should it?).

Thoughts? --Duja► 07:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion obvious from the RM was that the band is the primary topic for Iron Maiden. I (continue to) disagree that it is the primary topic for iron maiden, which was not the subject of the RM anyway, and think this situation falls in the Red meat vs. red meat example. IMO, capitalization differences are fine for differentiating articles, especially since the article with the other capitalization can be easily handled with a hatnote. --JHunterJ 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular opinion on my own (I'm not lazy to use Shift key) what is best. The common practice (as enshrined in WP:NCP and WP:NCTV) is to not differentiate on capitalization only, but it's not universal, as Red M/meat and Iron M/maiden demonstrate; however, those are exceptions rather than the rule. Another difference between the two is that the primary topic in red meat case is the meat, so the "lazy typist" will arrive there immediately by typing "red meat". However, the "lazy typist" (which is the band's fan likely to be< >;) ) would arrive to the torture device in the band's case.
There are actually two aspects to consider: internal linking (which is less of a problem, at least in iron maiden case, as any sane editor will title-case the wikilink to the band) and searching (which is the problem at hand, with "lazy typist" readers). --Duja► 12:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also have no aversion to the shift key. In this case, though, the failure of Iron maiden (torture device) to be moved to Iron maiden should have resulted in the retention of Iron maiden (torture device), Iron Maiden, and Iron maiden as a redirect to Iron maiden (disambiguation) -- at which point, the dab page should have been moved over the redirect, or a different discussion about whether this should continue to be an exception to the WP:NCP/WP:NCTV guidelines should have been held. I like Iron Maiden (I have a few of their albums) and don't have much affinity for iron maidens (never owned any), but the primary topic of "iron maiden" should be the device (IMO of course). Similar musical confrontations, without the benefit of being able to distinguish by caps: Muse vs. Muse (band), Madonna vs. Madonna (entertainer), although the fans were sure that the band or entertainer was the primary topic. --JHunterJ 16:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some other examples of titles where capitalization has been decided to be insufficient disambiguation are Lethal Injection (album) and Death Certificate (album). The former was recently moved from Lethal Injection, citing the latter as precedent. --GTBacchus(talk) 23:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many typers mistakenly use the wrong case or type all in one case or another. Because of this, titles differentiated only by case should be disambiguated. In a two-word title, a case change means there is only one letter of differentiation — easy to make a mistake. If there are other variables such as periods/full-stops, these can fall outside of any guideline. —  AjaxSmack  22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts[edit]

WP:NC(P) links here, and WP:NC (P) links to the naming conventions for people. Clearly we need more precision in our shortcuts. How should we straighten this out? --Dekimasuよ! 09:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the links have been fixed, and the shortcut redirected, and a dablink placed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). --jc37 10:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hirohito#RFC: Appropriate Emperor Name[edit]

An RFC on content related to this convention has been opened, comments are welcome. --MBisanz talk 01:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"By topic" secn and its sole subsecn, "Philosophy"[edit]

The text of the secn & subsecn has been around "forever" essentially unchanged. If philosophy epitomizes the problems that all topic areas (not topics!) share, let's tweak the text and retitle the headings. If not, surely we have done the corresponding job elsewhere, sometime in the last 5 years, and we should move this text to that place, or to the place that for philosophy corresponds to that myriad of other places, and provide lks to all those places.
--Jerzy•t 21:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this section should go - there is nothing special about the way philosophical articles are handled in this regard. --Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OED vs. American Heritage Dictionary[edit]

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

Conflicts over precision section[edit]

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

Wording[edit]

Can we try to get this wording right? We have now:

In this case, try to avoid confusion, per the general principle: When a reader enters this term and clicks "Go", what article are they most likely expecting to view as a result? If there is a reasonable chance a reader might have been looking for another meaning, use an appropriate disambiguation technique:

But this is not quite logical; this general principle as stated would bear on the choice of primary topic (if any), not on the decision to disambiguate. The relevant principle here is rather that any meaning (article topic) that a reader might reasonably be looking for (not just the most likely one) should be made accessible. So I would propose the following more pertinent wording (or something similar):

In this case, try to avoid confusion, per the general principle: When readers enter this term and click "Go", what article might they reasonably be expecting to view as a result? If there is more than one meaning that they might be looking for, use an appropriate disambiguation technique:

Objections? --Kotniski (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users usually don't look for more than one meaning at the same time. So, no, less clear and not an improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't my point. The point is that we're concerned here with the different meanings that different users might be looking for, not at all with which meaning is most likely being searched for. --Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If different spellings USUALLY have different meanings (see section title), each spelling USUALLY comes with the meaning most readers might be looking for. The guidance is only about covering for (slight) misspellings or alternate spellings that USUALLY (should/would) mean something different - and to which degree we cover that. Not every (less common) misspelling is covered with a hatnote in another article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see what you're getting at now. I"ve added a "however" to make it clear. --Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? No "however" needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's a contrast or change of topic. If you say "Do A per principle X. Do B." then it reads as if B is part of what we do in accordance with principle X. But here, as we've established, "B" isn't anything to do with the principle we're quoting - it's a quite separate aspect of the topic; the other side of the coin, even. --Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Do A per principle X. If Y, do B." is valid English. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not saying it's bad English, but the way it's written is confusing, since regardless of the "if", it looks as if the second part is a continuation of the first. I think I see what needs to be done - move the "principle" to the very first sentence of the paragraph, before the examples. --Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? No, doesn't make sense. I think you're trying to read something that isn't there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll show you what I mean on the page. It certainly makes more sense than what we have at the moment. --Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Please don't, you're just edit-warring over something that isn't there. Use talk page if you must. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something that isn't there? What do you mean? Of course it's there. I"m not trying to edit war, I thought we were having a civilized discussion; please WP:AGF. --Kotniski (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop it. Take a step back. Read it a few times. What you're doing doesn't make sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I"ve read it. Why do you keep reverting? Surely you can see the problem? There are two topics in this paragraph: (a) how to name articles; (b) how to apply disambiguation techniques. The "principle" as you want it stated relates to (a), not to (b). Everything I've tried to do in order to make that clear, you've rejected. What solution do you suggest? --Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, there is no problem. At least you've not been able to demonstrate that there is, as far as I can see. So, no, surely no solution in search of a problem is needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I keep describing the problem. Believe me, I read it, I'm an intelligent speaker of English, and I misunderstood it. If that's the case, then I presume that others will do likewise. So we should make it clearer somehow. --Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't "assume", maybe just admit a minor misreading on your part, instead of extrapolating your error to everyone. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't separate "another" (second sentence) from what it is referring to ("most likely meaning" in first sentence), by putting the examples in between. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what problem do you have with putting "however" in between? It may be unnecessary, but does it do any harm? It certainly does good for people who read it as I did. --Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does harm in that it seems to suggest that A and B are mutually exclusive options, which is not the case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And please stop the presumption "people who read it as I did", well they don't as far as I can tell. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, since you're so insistent, let's leave it for now.--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the last two sections[edit]

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

They're on their way, then... (I'll comment them out for now, in case anyone wants to salvage anything from them.) --Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

It is proposed to merge this page (and a number of others) with WP:Naming conventions. Please discuss at WT:Naming conventions#Merge. Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the proposed merged text is now in place at WP:Naming conventions. Do people feel the content of this page is now sufficiently well covered there that we can replace this page with a redirect to the appropriate section of that policy?--Kotniski (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of objections, then, I'm doing this. (The capitalization thing discussed below is also mentioned at WP:Naming conventions (capitalization).)--Kotniski (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should we allow article titles that differ only by capitalisation?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clearly consensus that article titles differing only by capitalisation is allowed. A small statement will be inserted into policy to that effect.

There are currently at least two requested move discussions (1, 2) where the issue of whether article titles should differ only by capitalisation has been discussed. WP:CAPS is unclear on the issue stating only that is possible but offering no advice as to whether it should be done. WP:PRECISION gives the example of Red Meat and Red meat but this was added without discussion in 2006 and although it's exsitance for that long gives it some credence it is notable that a disucssion in 2007 reached no obvious consensus over whether this example should be included or the wider issue. Given the lack of clear policy and the differing views in the requested moves I feel it is time to guage consensus again (or indeed for the first time). As far as I can see there are four options:

  1. Always allow article titles that differ only by capitilisation (e.g. Nervous breakdown and Nervous Breakdown could be seprate articles as could WASP and Wasp).
  2. Disallow articles titles that differ only by capitilisation of the first letter of words (e.g. Nervous breakdown and Nervous Breakdown should not be different articles) but allow it when there are greater differences (e.g. WASP and Wasp).
  3. Always disallow article titles that differ only by capitilisation (Nervous breakdown and Nervous Breakdown should not be seperate articles nor should WASP and Wasp).
  4. Treat each instance on a case by case basis.

Dpmuk (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My personal preference is for 2. I think readers are likely to search for terms by capitalising each initial letter even when it is not a proper noun - possibly bacause they are ignorant of wikipedias naming convention. Consquently I think it would be confusing to have seperate articles at Nervous breakdown and Nervous Breakdown. I think it's unlikely that users would delibrately search using all caps unless searching for an acronym. If they did so accidently (e.g. caps lock on) it should be immediately obvious what they've done wrong (unlike in the first case) as the article title will be in all caps. Therefore I see no problem with Wasp and WASP being seperate articles. Dpmuk (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I favor something close to #1 (with the understanding that there will be exceptions).
    I agree that some users unfamiliar with our naming conventions seeking the generic term will capitalize the first letter of each word and arrive at an unintended article. But under your preferred option, users familiar and unfamiliar with our naming conventions seeking the proper noun will capitalize the first letter of each word and arrive at an unintended article. In either circumstance, a hatnote will point the reader in the right direction (so we needn't worry about that), but I believe that it makes more sense to avoid unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation and reinforce the fact that we capitalize the first letter of the second and subsequent words only for proper nouns (thereby assisting readers/potential editors in familiarizing themselves with our naming conventions). —David Levy 14:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with David, so #1 - hatnotes are sufficient to show readers the way, while the differentiation is a bonus to those who do know (or guess) our conventions. It's a win-draw situation. (Though exceptions might be made in extreme cases, like the Streets of London vs. Streets Of London one I saw I think at WP:PRECISION.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support #1, per my comments at Talk:Nervous Breakdown (Album)#Requested move. In essence, readers who search for general terms by capitalizing the first letter of each word have searched incorrectly, as they are in fact conducting a search for proper nouns (or acronyms, if they're searching in all caps). If this causes them to arrive at an unintended article, hatnotes will direct them to the proper one, which is the purpose of hatnotes to begin with. Conversely, readers who capitalize their proper nouns correctly when searching will arrive at the intended article on the first try. If we disallow differentiation by capitalization, we may provide some convenience to readers who do not use capitalization properly in their searches, but at the same time we would be inconveniencing those who do, because those who enter their proper nouns correctly in the search box would never reach the intended article on the first try (as in the Nervous Breakdown example). We would be conveniencing users who don't understand how WP's naming conventions work and inconveniencing those who do. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say #1 is the best option at this point. If there are things that differ only in capitalization but certainly won't be confused–e.g., some well-known proper nouns and common nouns with titles that don't otherwise differ–we don't need to force anything upon them. Of course, #4 should be exercised when needed; flexibility is always a plus. Dekimasuよ! 12:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer #1. More links are kept simple, more readers can reach their desired articles via the Go box, and hatnotes and dab pages can get the rest to their destinations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1, and use hatnotes liberally in this instance. This comes up occasionally with academic journals: The subject is classical philology, and the journal is Classical Philology. Note that I don't say that editors must use capitalization as the primary means of disambiguation: I have no problem with the journal article residing at Classical Philology (journal). But I'm firmly in favor of editors having the option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer (#2) since it is more logical, considering alot of people treat some terms with capitalized lettering, from the articles I've cleaned up. And the audience of WikiPedia is not solely experienced editors, who know about capitalization. But make it non-binding, a guideline or a recommendation, so that in very clear cases of very popular note, capitalization by initial letter can be used to discriminate. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia's naming conventions seeking the generic term will capitalize the first letter of each word. But most readers seeking proper nouns (particularly those that are similar to generic terms) will act in kind, regardless of whether they're familiar with our naming conventions. Meanwhile, the non-capitalized variant will be typed by readers who are familiar with our naming conventions and many readers who are not.
Therefore, disambiguation via capitalization usually helps more readers reach the intended articles more easily. It also conveys our naming conventions to newcomers, thereby assisting them in finding future articles and reducing the likelihood that they'll make the sort of editing mistake that you find yourself cleaning up. (Having the capitalized variant routinely lead to the generic term encourages such errors.)
I agree, of course, that any preferred setup will have exceptions and should not be deemed inviolable. —David Levy 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly favor #1 and agree with most of the above comments favoring this option. There is no technical requirement to disambiguate article titles themselves unless they would be otherwise identical under WP naming conventions, and a difference in case means they are not identical. Use of hatnotes to avoid possible reader confusion is preferable in these cases, as it makes searching for and linking to the correct name easier in most cases. (Of course, as with everything on WP, there will be exceptions, so #4 will come into play in rare cases.) Station1 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no technical requirement ... Maybe not, but there is a strong Usability argument. Wikipedia is not provided for "those familiar with our naming conventions", but for every Web user.
If I search on Google, Yahoo etc, I might type "michael jackson" because it's quicker and I know from experience that capitalization makes no difference.
If I type "basset hound" or "LINEAR MOTOR" in Wikipedia's Go box, I reach Basset Hound or Linear motor without difficulty.
Users in general are not going to be concerned about Wikipedia naming conventions. (How many will know that something like WP:CANINESARETHEEXCEPTION turns Basset hound into Basset Hound?). A user who has discovered Basset Hound may a minute later type in "Red Meat" or "Nervous Breakdown" and land in the wrong place.
If I type "winchester cathedral" I reach the article describing that ancient building, with a hatnote leading me to the song of the same name. There is no way to distinguish the two lexically. Why should "Red Meat (song)" be treated differently from "Winchester Cathedral (song)" ?
So I would prefer #2 or #3 with occasional use of #4. Sussexonian (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All reasonable points. In order:
1. I agree WP is not solely for "those familiar with our naming conventions" and didn't use that phrase or mean to imply it is. Certainly the use of two otherwise identical titles, one capitalized and one not, might cause confusion for some portion of our readers. The question is how best to deal with that issue, whether through use of disambiguating hatnotes or by manipulating the article title of one or the other topic. In my opinion, hatnotes are less obtrusive because they do not force everyone to go to the not-best title, while pointing the minority to where they need to go.
2. You know from experience that capitalization makes no difference on Google or Yahoo. Similarly, most people know through experience that it does make a difference on WP. WP is not quite as ubiquitous as Google but it must be getting close. You use it 2 or 3 times and you get a sense of how it works.
3. If you type "basset hound" you reach Basset Hound without difficulty, but if you type "Nervous Breakdown" knowing it's the name of an album, you get there with unnecessary difficulty, having to go through mental breakdown.
4. You make a good argument for getting rid of WP:CANINESARETHEEXCEPTION if it existed.
5. Upper and lower case are distinguished lexically all the time. Most dictionaries will list the lower case first, then upper case. Since WP obviously isn't alphabetical, we can get the same result via hatnotes, rather than artificially changing the name of the topic to something less correct and less intuitive. The example of "Winchester Cathedral (song)" is unavoidable, but only because "Winchester Cathedral" the church is also always capitalized as a proper name. Station1 (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make similar points, but I think Station1 made them more clearly than I could have. Well said. The fact that we are technically able to differentiate article titles by capitalization means that we are able to make our titles more correct and more intuitive. We have simple methods (dab pages & hatnotes) to guide readers to whatever similarly-titled article it is that they may be after. Making titles less correct and less intuitive merely to (as I see it) dumb down the search process is rather illogical, and results in situations like Nervous Breakdown where we have 6 different titles to deal with just 2 articles...whose actual titles aren't even identical (Nervous Breakdown vs. Mental breakdown). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An added complication to consider is what to do with dab pages: one capitalisation may have a primary usage and another capitalisation have none, while the two variants share a dab page. Does a primary usage with a different capitalisation get picked out for special treatment as here, or not? PamD (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this is more an issue for MOS:DAB than an article naming issue, and I think relatively minor. Under current guidelines there, I would say the answer is no special top-line treatment for the example you cite because the dab page doesn't have "(disambiguation)" as part of its title; therefore people get there not only from the hatnote on the other-capitalized page (the rationale for linking back the primary topic first), but also directly by typing in or linking to the 'correct' capitalization. Station1 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe for one minute that any significant proportion of the Wikipedia audience carefully types in a phrase with capital or lower-case initials knowing that's where they will find a required topic. Only hardened editors of Wikifanatics are going to do that. How many users do you expect will ever type in "Nervous Breakdown" seeking the (not very notable) band or song? As against how many will type the same string seeking the psychological topic? It will make Wikipedia look very imbalanced if the encyclopedia appears to give prominence to an unknown band/song over an everyday phrase. Sussexonian (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, your opinion on the notability of the album/band is immaterial. FWIW, Black Flag are a very notable band covered in a multitude of secondary sources. Does the article need improvement? Yes, but your dismissal of the topic based on your own lack of knowledge of it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Also note that if we choose to allow disambiguation by capitalization, readers who type either "Nervous breakdown" or "nervous breakdown" in the search box would still arrive at the psychological topic (Mental breakdown) on the first try, as both are redirects. On the other hand, readers who type in "Nervous Breakdown" (proper noun) will arrive at the album article, which we assume is what they are looking for since they bothered to capitalize both words in their search. Disallowing disambiguation by capitalization, thereby forcing all variations of "nervous breakdown" to redirect to Mental breakdown, provides no added convenience to readers who are unfamiliar with caps in our article titles, and inconveniences those who are familiar with it. Hardly a logical alternative. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like consensus is going to be for number one (see my proposal below). If that is chosen then I think common sense still needs to apply. There are likely to be times when one subject is so much the primary topic that the least confusion is likely to be caused by both capitalisations pointing to the same article and then having hat notes (unfortunately I can't find a good example but I'm thinking here when one article is ten times more popular than the other). However I don't feel the need to include this in the guidelines as it can be a normal editorial decision. Dpmuk (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

It seems pretty clear to me that consensus is for option number one. Therefore I propose a change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) as this seems the most logical place for it. I suggest the following new paragraph, where changes are in italics:

"It is possible to create two non-redirect pages with the same name but different capitalization and this is an acceptable method of disambiguation. If this arises, a disambiguation link should always be placed at the top of both pages, linking either to a dedicated disambiguation page or to the other article."

I think that is all the changes that are needed to guidelines as it makes it clear that is allowable as well as technically possible, something that is not currently obvious. Further it does not mandate it because, as per my comments above, I am certain there will be cases where it wouldn't be sensible to disambiguate by capitalisation - these can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Dpmuk (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would say "hatnote" instead of "disambiguation link"; the two pages might be articles and link to each other ({{distinguish}}), might be articles and link to a single, shared disambiguation page, might be articles and link to separate disambiguation pages also differing by caps, might be separate articles and link to separate disambiguation pages that differ by more than just caps, might be an article and a disambiguation page (and the dab page wouldn't need a hatnote), or might be two disambiguation pages (this case should probably result in a merge, IMO). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and close this RfC and make the change mentioned above. If any contributor feels my closure was in error please feel free to revert. Dpmuk (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive._Precision_and_accuracy&oldid=1091651587"