Wikipedia talk:Title punctuation

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Title punctuation page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

MOS[edit]

Some editors believe that rather than being controlled by Wikipedia's Manual of Style – as is the case currently – the punctuation of titles should be determined by common usage or the official name, as the substantive aspects of the article title currently are. Some of the suggestions below directly contradict the Manual of Style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnosticaphid (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Some editors also believe the world is flat, maybe. It is necessary to bring this guideline in line with MOS, or in this case, bring MOS in line with this guideline, by making one edit to the MOS - changing

"The title of an article should be based on the Article titles policy. The principal criteria are that a title be recognizable (as a name or description of the topic), natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they need to be balanced against one another."

to

"The title of an article is established by the WP:Article titles policy."

Not a very big change. Apteva (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above. It is not possible for one policy to be contrary to another. One of them needs to be changed. Apteva (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is as follows: Titles should generally follow the MOS... but exceptions can be made when needed. If applying the rules and guidance set out at WP:Article titles indicates that a non-MOS-following title is called for, there is no reason why we can not set the MOS aside.

That said, exceptions to any policy or guideline, should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and should not written out as an "always do this" rule. Given the history of endless discussion and debate over which small horizontal lines are "correct", I have to view this proposal as essentially an attempt to create a counter-MOS. That is simply disruptive wikilawyering and unwanted instruction creep. Yes, there are exceptions to the MOS, but we don't need a guideline to enumerate what they are. For this reason I oppose promotion to guideline status. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be changed to make it an acceptable guideline? Apteva (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to reflect consensus. The title is determined according to title guidelines, and the styling of that title is determined according to the style guidelines. As long as you don't hear that consensus, though, there is really little that can be done with yet another splinter discussion explaining how your contrary opinion of how Wikipedia must do things is not how Wikipedia must do things. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as far as I can tell there is no reason this does not deserve to be adopted. Sure it can be reworded here or there, but the basic principle is sound.

As to the last sentence, where did the word must come from? Wikipedia has no firm rules, and thinking it does is false. It is ludicrous to think that titles are styled per the MOS, and there is no policy that says that they are. The MOS says that, but that is what is called a "local consensus" and does not reflect the opinion of the wider community. "If it improves the Encyclopedia, Ignore All Rules." Spelling airports and comets correctly improves the encyclopedia, which means spelling them with hyphens. Wikipedia does not always get things right, but sooner or later someone comes along and fixes what ever is wrong - hopefully. This is just one of those fixes. When I look back at the development of the dash draft, I see there was no consensus to spell comets and airports with dashes, yet that part was included anyway. So much for a consensus. The correct approach would have been to delete the disputed portion and include the rest, despite the fact that teaching punctuation is not something that belongs in the MOS at all. Apteva (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no conclusion here that the above belongs on the page, and it has been removed, and any attempts to replace it without consensus here is inappropriate. As mentioned above, it is simply not possible to have one guideline disagree with another guideline, because each supposedly reflects consensus, and it is not possible to have two versions that disagree and still be consensus. One needs to be changed. Apteva (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comets[edit]

With the IAU saying It is strictly not correct to write "Comet Hale-Bopp", I don't understand then why the common name [is] preferred, with a redirect from the formal name. Surely we should be acceding to the opinions of the ultimate authority on these matters. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Common name... it explains why we don't necessarily use the formal name. Essentially, it says that the truly "ultimate" authority on what to call a topic is the collective body of sources that discuss the topic in question. If that collective body of sources is split on what to call it, but a significant majority favors one name over another, then the collective wisdom of that significant majority is considered more authoritative than that of the minority. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, this essay leaves a lot to be desired. I don't see what the question of whether the article's title should be the official name or the common name has anything to do with the apparent subject of this essay, which is the punctuation of the chosen name. The section on comets has no substantive discussion of why the statement is made, "Comet names only use slashes, spaces, and hyphens". Nor is there any admission that this is different than the Manual of Style. There's no discussion of why the MOS chose dashes and why hyphens are more appropriate here. There's no resolution of the question, "if the title of the article is essentially exempt from the MOS rules, does that mean the body of the article – which is surely subject to the MOS – is going to say, for instance, 'Hale–Bopp' while the title says 'Hale-Bopp'?" If the answer to that question is no, does that mean we're just getting rid of the MOS altogether? There's no discussion of why it's appropriate to defer to the policies about the substance of titles when talking about the punctuation of titles. If there is going to be a legitimate attempt to reach consensus about the topic of this essay, these points need to be seriously addressed. AgnosticAphid talk 18:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is misspelling Hale-Bopp. It is a false assumption that endash rules for sentences apply to proper nouns. References are not needed, but the reason why it says that slashes, hyphens and spaces are used in comet names is because the IAU says that only spaces and hyphens are used, and slashes are used in comet designations, which is how comets are named before they have a name. And as the e-mail states, the formal nomenclature includes the designation followed by the name in parentheses. Apteva (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The style choice of en dash or hyphen does not render either a misspelling. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that is simply one opinion. My opinion differs - punctuation is no more or less a character than is a letter. While it is easy to tell words that are misspelled though punctuation differences, it is also easy to recognize words that are misspelled through letter differences. What we are talking about is proper names, not sentences. Sentences can be formed using a variety of equally valid forms of punctuation. Names are names, and correctly have a preferred format, which is what we should be using, or a most commonly used format, which we sometimes use instead. But those are the two choices, official and common. MOS preferred spelling is not one of those choices. An example is eBay. Do we look at MOS to see how to spell it? No, we look at the title policy to see how to spell it - Ebay or eBay or EBAY. MOS has absolutely nothing to do with choosing titles. Apteva (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there is an RFC/U open on you, Apteva, following your continuous disruptive activities on this topic, it is a very bad idea for you to attempt to use this page as a new front for to argue on. Stop it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above restored. Don't do that either, Apteva. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FOC. "Focus on article content, not on editor conduct." This is a policy that everyone needs to follow. Any comments that focus instead on conduct are correctly hatted, deleted, archived, or moved to that users talk page. Including this one. Apteva (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I was involved in a dispute with you, that link might be relevant. Further similar action on your part will result in a block. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to tag as no consensus[edit]

The Template:noconsensus would seem to be appropriate here, as this essay is just another step in a long-running beating of dead horse. I see no chance that its author will allow it to be changed to something that would have consensus, and if he did, it would be totally redundant. As it is, it might mislead people into thinking that there is some support for these ideas.

Given the months of history and discussion on these topics, is it too soon to mark it failed? Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree that this essay is unhelpful and implies a degree of support for aptevas views that i havent seen. On the other hand, because this essay just sort of sprang forth like Minerva, there is no actual discussion of whether this proposal should be a guideline or policy here. (Ordinarily wouldnt there be an rfc about whether to make this a guideline?) Also, is there even such a thing as a failed essay, which is explicitly just one persons views that should be considered with discretion? But since it seems plain that there's broad opposition, I feel like this essay might be a better target for WP:MfD, maybe because its disruptive, but I don't have very much experience with the rules there. AgnosticAphid talk 18:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I guess I meant that theres not much of a formalized discussion here. Obviously there is some discussion of whether to promote the essay – including my own comment! – but I feel like with the 700 other places this is being discussed that this particular page doesn't have much. But as you said, this may have gone on so long already that perhaps there is no reason to actually have an extended formalized discussion here. There certainly dosnt seem to be an overwhelming amount of editor interest. So if we are going to use this tag, I think we should at least wikilink to another page(s) where this is or was (being) discussed, in case this comes up again or someoe stumbles here. AgnosticAphid talk 18:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasonable time needed for discussion of a proposal is documented in the section below. Good suggestion. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion of some of the proposals in this essay[edit]

Over the last four months, some of the anti-en-dash and anti-MOS proposals in the essay have been previously discussed at length and mostly rejected by consensus, mostly in discussions started by Apteva, the author of this essay:

Feel free to add others, to to note any venues where these ideas were supported instead of rejected. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above is relevant. The MOS is inconsistent with WP:TITLE and needs to be fixed. That is a fact. To think that Title determines the letters of an article title and that MOS fixes up the punctuation to make it look pretty is patently absurd. All of the above are completely valid proposals, and opposing them is equally absurd. Apteva (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really clear what the point of the essay is. Among the aspects previously discussed at these places is your theory that "The MOS is inconsistent with WP:TITLE". If that's the point, address it head-on at sensible places. But not in your usual way. Figure out a coherent argument that seems like it can garner some support, so it will not sound like just more of your same shit. Dicklyon (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this proposed guideline is clear from the first sentence "The punctuation of titles is determined by common usage or the official name, just as with any other title." This is just one of the many naming conventions, and is necessary because no other naming convention addresses punctuation or diacritics.

Go to any guideline or policy and there is a tag at the top that says something along the lines of this guideline or policy reflecting consensus. As such it is not possible for one guideline to disagree with another guideline or policy without one of them not reflecting consensus, and as such which ever does not reflect consensus, in this case MOS, needs to be immediately corrected. As can be seen above it is absurdly unprofessional to say "the consensus at the MOS is not really a consensus which is why it misspells some of the examples", regardless of how that is worded. Apteva (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead actually has three unrelated sentences, none of which make much sense for an essay or a proposal for changing something. The first refers to "any other title", which is a bit mysterious in term of what the "other" is distinguishing. The second is a complete non-issue. The third is a change in title guidelines unrelated to punctuation. It's a mess. Focus, and try to find something that more than you, Enric, and WikiD77 might support, and maybe you'll be able to do something that doesn't look like just more of the usual disruptive whining about the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every title is chosen by choosing between the official title and the most common usage. Choosing punctuation is not an exception, and mentioning that is worthwhile. Nothing here is an "issue" but is a commonsense guide to questions that might come up. Putting punctuation decisions for titles into the MOS does make them an issue. That is inappropriate. Apteva (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]