Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:33, 18 January 2025

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Misplaced Pages article titles policy and Manual of Style, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

Archives by topic: Common names 1, 2, 3 Naming conflict 1, 2, 3 Precision and accuracy

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Is this a valid disambig page?

An article I have watchlisted Eliza Smith has been turned into a disambig page, with the article that was there previously moved to Eliza Smith (writer). Added to the new disabig page are Eliza Kennedy Smith, Eliza Bland Smith Erskine Norton and Eliza Doyle Smith. All three of the 'non-Eliza Smith' articles have been around for a while with no need for a disambig page (particularly one that isn't Eliza Smith). Is this not a case where hatnotes would be preferable to a disambig page, given they have 'natural' disambiguators? (I ask this from a position of complete ignorance on disambig pages, which I rarely get involved with... - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The place to ask such questions is usually Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation, but I can tell you right now that the answer you will get is that this is a perfectly fine disambiguation page. Any person with a given first name and last name is likely to be identifiable by that name, irrespective of whether a middle name (or maiden name) is interposed. If there is an argument that Eliza Smith (writer) is the primary topic of the page, then the disambiguation page can be moved to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title, but it seems unlikely that such a short article on a person prominent so many decades ago would be primary. BD2412 T 12:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's great - thanks very much. I don't think the writer is likely to be the primary (or at least, if she is, it'll be by a very narrow margin and I'd be surprised),but it's good to know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course not, but it could become clearer if the Disambiguation page is improved for readability. RealAdil (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove UE as a whole.

It makes no sense that anything that has a non-English name is translated in English. I think this should be revised considering that in Québec, we fought tooth and nail to protect our language, and now English Misplaced Pages mindlessly follow the English-language newspapers without ever considering what the majority of French-language newspapers says. LilianaUwU 04:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This Misplaced Pages is written in English. We follow English-language usage. If you prefer to read Misplaced Pages in French, then the link is http://fr.wikipedia.org. 162 etc. (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

English or not, when the French name is the only official one, whether sources use another name is not important. Maybe I'm wrong when it comes to the PLQ, but there are plenty other examples where it's not the case. LilianaUwU 04:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

>whether sources use another name is not important

Well, it is. Per the policy, "Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources.)"

I seriously doubt that you'll find consensus to change that. 162 etc. (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

UE doesn't hold that titles should be universally translated to English, it only holds that titles should use the form that's most common in English-language RS. (In this respect, it basically extends the principles of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RSUE.) This often results in the adoption of translated titles, but also allows for moves in the other direction if sources support it: for instance, the article Seitō (magazine) used to be titled after the magazine's translated name Bluestockings, but moved to its current title by RM consensus because Seitō was more prevalent in English sourcing. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It makes no sense that anything that has a non-English name is translated in English. Then you should be pleased to learn your premise is mistaken: the guideline doesn't call for that (read it again: it says "should follow English-language usage", not "should translate into English"), and not everything that has a non-English name is translated to English here (though it may be transliterated): Der Spiegel (not "The Mirror"), Mainichi Shimbun (not "Daily Newspaper"), Haaretz (not "The Land"), Touche pas à mon poste ! (not "Don't touch my TV!"), Amores perros (not "Love's a Bitch"), Izvestia (not "News"), Livorno (not "Leghorn"), Mechelen (not "Mechlin"), etc. Even with respect to Quebec: we have Trois-Rivières, not "Three Rivers".

As far as I know, what's been fought for in Quebec is the primacy of French and the use of authentic French words when speaking and writing in French, not to dictate to users of English how to speak and write English when they are speaking and writing in English. In any event, this isn't Misplaced Pages for Quebec, it's English Misplaced Pages for the entire world.

Further, French Misplaced Pages has articles titled fr:Royaume-Uni and fr:États-Unis and fr:Californie, not "United Kingdom" and "United States" and "California". Why should English Misplaced Pages follow a different approach? Largoplazo (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would we consider what French-language newspapers say when we ARE WRITING IN ENGLISH? I don't tell you how to speak and write French, your attempt tell us how to speak and write English is monstrously offensive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

And to the list of examples, one could add Mein Kampf (not My Struggle), Cirque du Soleil (not Sun Circus), Pravda (not Truth), Germany (not Deutschland), and on and on. I can only agree strongly with Khajidha: your premise is mistaken, your argumentation is baseless, and your proposal has no chance. Feel free to raise it again, though, after you have fixed the titles of the following articles at French Misplaced Pages so they all have the proper English titles: Californie, Irlande, Le Cap, Chambre des lords, Parc national de Yellowstone, and La Nouvelle-Orléans. Et passez une très bonne journée ! Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIALNAME is also pertinent here, since part of the basis of the OP's idea seems to be that because the organization's official name is English, en.WP has to write it that way regardless what the preponderance of English-language sources are doing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but USEENGLISH is, in my view, second only to COMMONNAME in how much there's a disconnect between what people think it says and what it actually says. Misplaced Pages deliberately does not have a preferred form of English, yet, for example, I often see people in NZ-related RMs try to pull the "Māori-derived terms aren't really English" card (which coincides with the recent anti-indigenous pushback amongst white conservatives in AU/NZ politics). I think we do need a WP:NWFCTM equivalent for the article titles policy, because even though some older people halfway across the world might still call it "Ayers Rock", the COMMONNAME for years has always been Uluru. Sceptre (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • If I were king for a day, I would just delete the WP:USEENGLISH redirect and call it WP:USEENGLISHSOURCES instead. When it's the shortcut that's causing the misunderstanding, no amount of nuance in the policy itself is likely to help. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarification regarding language of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY

Hello,

I am writing to inquire about the phrasing ...the subject area... in the Recognizability description. Does ...subject area... refer to the general topic area of an article's content or specifically the subject matter of the article in question? I ask because I have been participating in multiple WP:RM discussions, especially in the context of WP:NCROY. In addition, how ...subject area... is interpreted can affect my !vote rationale.

Please note that I am not asking this to rehash or pre-empt a move request involving WP:NCROY (In any case, I am skeptical that the Russian emperor is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Alexander III because Alexander the Great a Scottish king had the same regnal name and number). I am asking this because I have never received an explicit clarification on this matter in the various RMs I have participated in.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you,

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC), last edited 14:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

N

Virtually nobody remembers Alexander the Great's regnal number, so he is obviously not a candidate for the primary topic.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for noting this. I admit that I thought about that when I was writing my query, but I also believed that Alexander the Great could still be the primary topic for Alexander III on technical grounds. I probably should have used Alexander III of Scotland, who is commonly known by that regnal number, to illustrate my point. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Taking the revised version of the OP's scenario, of "Alexander III" in particular: in English-language sources, the Scottish monarch still only has only a bit more than half as much RS coverage as the Russian one . Whether 12K sources for the Scot and 20K for the Russian firmly establishes the latter as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC might be open to some disputation (which would not be the case if it were something like 3K to 175K split). But the Scottish one clearly is not primary, and he would probably be the leading contender against the Russian by a wide margin. To answer the OP's more general question, "subject area" in this sense means heads of state and comparable figures (such as Popes and a few other people usually known by "Foobar IV" regnal-style numbering, perhaps inclusive of major non-states like duchies in some cases). It doesn't mean anything narrower that's dependent on the specific article content and context (like being Russian or from a particular era).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on the relationship between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT

Most participants agreed that both sections are integral parts of the Article titles policy and should be balanced and considered equally when determining titles in a requested move (RM) discussion, on a case-by-case basis using the context of an article. Editors argued that neither section should override the other universally; instead, contributors should weigh all relevant factors alongside the policy's text. Some editors also suggested that WP:COMMONNAME and relevant sections in the Manual of Style were an additional important consideration in RM discussions.

The minority of contributors supporting the primacy of WP:TITLEFORMAT communicated that the strong and direct language in the section (e.g. "do" / "must" rather than "should do" / "can do") established precedence. However, opposing participants argued that policies are not set in stone, and that disagreements over their interpretation should be resolved through consensus-based discussions rather than strictly following the exact wording of the policy (WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR). Furthermore, while editors supporting primacy also contended that enforcing precedence would prevent potential conflicts and maintain internal consistency within the policy, opposing editors rebutted that such disharmony and inconsistency was not widespread under the status quo.

Frostly (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

For any proposed article title determined by the application of WP:CRITERIA the proposed title should nonetheless comply with WP:TITLEFORMAT (ie WP:TITLEFORMAT has primacy over WP:CRITERIA). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

For simplicity, comments can be made as a Yes or No to the RfC proposition.

Background

At WP:TITLEFORMAT, it is stated: The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles; consistency on these helps avoid duplicate articles .

The meaning of any particular part of a policy should be construed within the fuller context and not in isolation. The question considers whether the two sections exist in harmony with each other or whether the application of any of the five criteria can be construed to over-ride any of the matters detailed in WP:TITLEFORMAT.

This RfC does not propose a change to the wording of this policy nor does it preclude a change. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: Just as there are five principles listed at WP:CRITERIA, there are eleven matters (sections) to WP:TITLEFORMAT. The proposition deals with the relationship between WP:CRITERIA (as a whole) and WP:TITLEFORMAT (as a whole). 08:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Intent The intent of this RfC is to determine what the policy is actually telling us as written (how it should reasonably be construed) as opposed to what editors think the policy should be telling us. If there is a disjunction between the two, then an amendment to the policy is indicated but that would be another issue.

Pinging editors that have already commented: WhatamIdoing, Thryduulf, Voorts, SnowFire, Adumbrativus, Extraordinary Writ, Novem Linguae and Mdewman6. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Yes (as proposer) The wording at the intro to TITLEFORMAT states the considerations detailed therein are not covered by the five principles - matters raised therein fall outside the scope of CRITERIA. The matters identified at TITLEFORMAT mainly exist for technical reasons that should not be over-ridden (noting that it is rare to use must not on WP). Reading the subject guidance in the full context of this policy, the proposition represents both the spirit and intent and the letter of the policy. Accepting the proposition asserts a harmony between the two individual sections. Rejecting the proposition creates tension and disharmony within the policy. That would assume that the drafters of the policy lacked the perception to see such a conflict of ideas and/or, that such a conflict should exist. By Occam's razor (or at least its corollary) the reasonable (simplest) view is that the intention is one of harmony between the two sections. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

PS Many of the eleven matters identified at TITLEFORMAT use unambiguous emphatic language such as do not or use rather than should use. Such language serves to tell us that these matters are not optional. They are definitely not informing us on how to balance the five criteria. These are things that a proposed title cannot violate. Such language quite clearly establishes the relationship with CRITERIA and the primacy of the matters at TITLEFORMAT collectively. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• For context, this stems from this discussion (about this RM), where I was asked as closer to disregard !votes that invoked consistency. I declined to do so since I feel consistency is a policy consideration (WP:CONSISTENT; WP:CRITERIA) that editors are allowed to balance against other factors, but if editors think that style guidelines like MOS:CAPS should always take precedence, I'm happy to be recalibrated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, it is not that MOS:CAPS takes precedence (at least not directly). It is that WP:LOWERCASE is part of WP:TITLEFORMAT. The weight given to MOS:CAPS comes from within WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• No WP:TITLEFORMAT should not have primacy over WP:CRITERIA; both are part of the WP:AT policy and should carry equal weight. WP:TITLEFORMAT addresses issues not directly addressed by WP:CRITERIA, in other words, it informs how to balance and invoke the 5 criteria, but is not something that the criteria can 'violate' or not. In the case of that RM, the fundamental question is whether "battle" is part of the proper noun or not, which essentially is a WP:COMMONNAME question- how do reliable sources normally write it. Thus, we have MOS:CAPS and, more specifically, MOS:MILCAPS, which are WP:GUIDELINES, which are specific invocations of a combination of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:LOWERCASE, which are both WP:POLICY. I don't think WP:CONSISTENT arguments should be completely discounted, but it's up to the RM participants and the closer to determine how much weight they carry. WP:CONSISTENT states consistency should be the goal to the extent it is practical and WP:TITLECON (an essay) discusses consistency arguments when other considerations are equal so it seems clear consistency should not be the only consideration. Personally, I think most battles significant enough to be known as "battle of x", "battle" is clearly part of the proper noun (the event usually being more important than where it occurred), but we must follow reliable sources. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. Both policy sections include various factors that are used to determine an appropriate title on a case by case basis. In an RM discussion, any relevant factors should be balanced and weighed against one another to reach consensus. I don't see evidence of disharmony or major inconsistency requiring a massive change to policy. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC does not propose a change to policy. It is a question of how the spirit and intent and the letter of two different parts of the policy, as they exist, should be reasonably construed. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's splitting hairs. If there's only one way of reasonaly construing a policy, then that construction becomes the policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Reading CRITERIA and the supporting sections addressing the five principles (within the full context of the policy), it is essentially telling us that a proposed title is determined by weighing each principle and that each principle need not be given equal weight in a particular case. However, TITLEFORMAT tells us that the matters therein are questions not covered by the five principles - ie they are outside the scope of CRITERIA and the five principles. The matters at TITLEFORMAT are clearly quite separate from CRITERIA. The eleven matters at TITLEFORMAT tell us to do a certain thing, to not do a certain thing or that certain things might be done in narrowly construed circumstances. Compared with CRITERIA (and the five sections that explain the individual principles) TITLEFORMAT uses emphatic language. Reading the individual sections in the fuller context of the whole policy, TITLEFORMAT is essentially telling us to discard or modify a proposed title if it does not conform to any of the eleven matters therein. At no point does it suggest that any of the five principles might cover any of the matters at TITLEFORMAT. Consequently, it is not reasonable to posture that any of the five principles, either individually or in combination, might over-ride or supplant any of the matters at TITLEFORMAT - especially those which are made emphatically without exception.

  Yes, there is only one way that a rule, law or policy should be reasonably construed if it is robustly constructed - eg without ambiguity. But that is not always the case. Consequently, in the real world, rules and laws are often tested to determine how they should be reasonably construed. I make a reasoned case that the letter of the policy is that, matters at TITLEFORMAT have primacy over CRITERIA. In consequence there is harmony between the two sections internally and a harmony between WP:AT and other associated P&G. The internal and external harmony evidences that construing the relationship between the two sections this way represents not only the letter of the policy but the spirit and intent of the policy. Asserting otherwise creates tension, ambiguity, inconsistency and disharmony between the two sections and related P&G where none exists otherwise. Is there a reasoned argument that the alternative accurately represents the letter of the policy and the spirit and intent or is it just an opinion that I don't like it, then it should be made.

  Yes, n an RM discussion, any relevant factors should be balanced and weighed against one another. However, arguing an internal contradiction within a policy where none reasonably exists would be illogical and flatly contradict the policy. Accordingly, it should be discarded. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are not statutes. They are not written by a single body at a single point of time; there's no legislative drafters or style guide; and the overriding concerns are not precision, consistency, or rule of law. Rather, they are written by several editors—many with opposing viewpoints—over the course of decades according to a process that values consensus, with the recognition that ignore all rules is an overriding principle. Your interpretation of AT as written might be correct, but it's beside the point. In current practice, RM discussions generally involve editors making arguments based on COMMONNAME, CRITERIA, TITLEFORMAT, or any of the various naming conventions, and then weighing between those arguments. One discussion might conclude with a consensus that consistency is more important than concision, while another might result in using a common name instead of a precise title. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  If there's only one way of reasonaly construing a policy, then that construction becomes the policy. We can only construe a policy base on what is written. The purpose and intent of this RfC is to determine how the relationship between CRITERIA and TITLEFORMAT should be construed based on what is written within the fuller context of the policy. This is exactly the point. Proposing a title (be it the initial title or at an RM) is about balancing the five criteria for any particular case. That is what the policy is telling us and it is not disputed. But this is not the question posed by the RfC nor the point of the RfC. If the policy is telling us to comply with TITLEFORMAT, then that is what we do too. The intent of the RfC is not to determine what editors think the policy should say but what it actually says. If it doesn't say what the community think it should say, then it is ""broke" and should be fixed. However, that would be another matter since it is not the intent of this RfC to change the policy. Furthermore, IAR is not a get out of jail free card to be exercised whenever one just doesn't like the rules. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a lawyer. I love getting in the weeds and arguing about the meaning of the law. But that's not how Misplaced Pages interprets or creates rules. Editors operate based on consensus, not legalistic readings of P&Gs. Please review WP:RAP and WP:PPP. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• No. Voorts puts it well. Both sections contain factors that need to be considered in the context of an individual discussion and neither can be correctly stated as stronger than the other in all cases. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• This RFC could use some examples placed prominently towards the top somewhere. I read it twice and do not understand it. If I spent another 5 minutes reading the linked policies I could probably puzzle it out, but including that information here would be helpful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae, it is a question of whether CRITERIA (or any particular principle therein) would over-ride any (one or more) of the eleven matters at TITLEFORMAT, noting that for many of these matters the language used is emphatic rather than optional. My response to Voorts might better explain the issue. I will give some examples if this helps. Some of these are related/analogous to article title discussions that have occurred.

  Would a proposed title that uses title case over-ride LOWERCASE on the basis that article titles using title case are more RECOGNISABLE or more NATURAL than article titles written in sentence case?

  Would a proposed title of #tag over-ride WP:TSC on the basis of recognisability/COMMONNAME?

  Would a series of sub-articles on a topic in a format similar to "Azerbaijan/Transport" (though using some character other than "/") on the basis of CONSISTENT, NATURAL or CONCISE over-ride Do not create subsidiary articles?

  Would one have a title "The Department of Foo", over-riding WP:DEFINITE on the basis of CONSISTENT and COMMONNAME (we always see "the Department of Foo" in sources) or "Wild horses", using a similar argument to over-ride WP:SINGULAR.

  Would we have "X Plate" for the names of individual tectonic plates citing CONSISTENT because all WP articles use "X Plate" over-riding LOWERCASE even though none of the individual plate names are consistently capped in sources. Or do we change all of these to lowercase on the basis of CONSISTENT because the majority of cases are consistently not capitalised in sources?

  Would CONCISE over-ride WP:TSC to use "¿" for an article about the inverted question mark?

  Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, Voorts is correct. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. If any one guideline should have precedence, it's WP:COMMONNAME, which is the titling equivalent of how Misplaced Pages handles everything else (e.g. WP:DUEWEIGHT for when sources disagree on more factual matters). Perhaps WP:NPOVNAME, too (the titling equivalent of WP:NPOV). (Not seriously mentioning these as counterproposals, just an "IMO" on priority.)
  • Part 2: I don't want to sidetrack, but I also disagree that this is even applicable to the sample RM that caused this (which I did not participate in). Suppose an editor performs a, for purpose of discussion, indisputably incorrect ngrams analysis. They screwed something up, made a typo, who knows. But the results of that faulty ngram analysis indicate some rule in TITLEFORMAT should predominate. But... it doesn't matter, because garbage in, garbage out, so the would-be TITLEFORMAT guidance doesn't even really apply. Okay, the case of a clear error isn't common, but what's more common is a contested ngram analysis. Cinderella said in that RM and in others that ngrams can overstate the rate of capitalization, but a lot of people disagree and believe that ngrams can understate the rate of capitalization by mixing in normal uses of the term. Which side is "right" isn't important here, but the point is, if the raw evidence is contested, a closer shouldn't just close "because (some policy in TITLEFORMAT) says so". There's really two claims afoot here, one of raw evidence and one of how to apply policy, and the first is often harder to parse! I've seen RMs close on arguments that are (IMO) inarguably at variance with the facts on the ground, and I'm sure that others think the same in reverse of me. Point is, it's not even clear that this proposed change does what it's implied to do, and if it does it would lead to absurdities like my example before of a faulty analysis somehow prevailing because it invoked the "right" policy on the wrong grounds. SnowFire (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    SnowFire, firstly, there is no change to WP:AT proposed here at all. The question is about how the existing letter and spirit and intent of the relationship between CRITERIA and TITLEFORMAT should be (correctly) construed. Secondly, while the discussion with Extraordinary Writ may have led to this RfC (one followed the other), the RM being discussed there was not the only matter leading to this RM. In that RM it was argued that the CONSISTENT over-rode LOWERCASE - not because of source evidence that the title should be lowercase but because of an unsubstantiated claim that of a convention to use alternative capitalisation regardless of what sources did for a particular case. While CONSISTENT exists, if a cited policy exists it must also be reasonably construed if it is to be given any weight. This RM has nothing to do with the evidence presented at that or any other RM. But addressing your point without getting sidetracked, it is the role of commenting editors to present appropriate evidence to support their case and for editors opposing that case to interrogate such evidence to confirm it does evidence what it is purported to (noting that capitalisation is essentially a statistical question that requires a polling of sources to determine the proportion of capitalisation in prose). This RM is not just about the relationship of LOWERCASE to any one or more of the principles at CRITERIA. It addresses the relationship of CRITERIA to all of the matters covered by TITLEFORMAT, where I have seen discussions relating to LOWERCASE, SINGULAR, DEFINITE, subsidiary articles, persons names, TCS and trademarks that have prompted this. That is the reasons why this RfC is about the relationship between CRITERIA and TITLEFORMAT rather than CRITERIA and LOWECASE. Perhaps I might put this in perspective for you and link to your comment (response to me) here, even though it is about the relationship between CONSISTENT and LOWERCASE. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Don't want to talk too much about a specific RM rather than the overall change, but if I had !voted in that RM, then yes, I would have placed very little weight on WP:CONSISTENT. And I agree with you that the community should take CONSISTENT less seriously. But I also think that this is a matter already mostly handled fine by our consensus process. If other editors in good standing want to prioritize CONSISTENT in areas I disagree, that's their right - the MOS is inherently suggestions rather than mandated right or wrong things, as it has to be because language changes over time.

    The larger issue for me is the ngrams one - I'm thinking of stuff like the "Eurasian P/plate" RM where there was just a failure to agree on reality, and the closer bought the ngrams argument over the "here's what geologists who actually work in the field say" argument (which was a crazy thing to dismiss as "vibes"!). If you say that this isn't the issue you're raising here, fine, I could be persuaded to abstain, but I think that was the core of the original Battle of Panipat discussion, common name as decided by ngram analysis. If hypothetically it was indisputable there was completely no common name at all and just wild variance, then sure, lowercase b, and if hypothetically it was indisputable the > X% Battle usage threshold was met (where X varies by editor), then clearly it should be capital B. But as mentioned above, it is rare for the matter to be indisputable! So fiddling with which policy "wins" should have had little effect in my book, as the question was truly one of COMMONNAME, and that is clearly one where people just greatly disagree. (i.e. that we're just talking about a different reason to not move, that of "didn't make a convincing enough COMMONNAME case.") SnowFire (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Picking ngrams over reliable sources is just incorrect. COMMONNAME itself says we should follow the most reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    I couldn't agree more, but, unfortunately, that's not always how move discussions have gone in the past. I strongly believe the usage in relevant reliable sources should trump the usage of ngrams, which take into account a large swath of sources that may be unfamiliar with proper usage and capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Ngrams are generally the gold standard for assessing common name because unlike your search for "relevant reliable sources", which is an undefined and imprecise definition, they provide an objective and unbiased look at a wide variety of sources with a clear measure that isn't defined by anyone on Misplaced Pages, not to mention analysis by year. And book sources are usually presumed to be at the upper echelons of reliability too. Far too many RMs use cherry-picked lists of sources, many of which are part of the WP:OFFICIALNAMES phallacy and are often just designed to support whatever viewpoint the RM nominator wants to convey.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Ngrams can be useful when it is clear that a single phrase refers to only a single topic and is used only in a single context. However when a single phrase has refers to multiple topics and/or is used in multiple context then it is not an accurate representation of any of them. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

    This is exactly my point of view, and it's why every title with a common noun in it, whether a proper name or not, seemingly ends up being downcased. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Another case where an ngrams argument was simply incorrect was a situation where there were two topics with the same name, one was a proper noun and the other a common noun (it was an article about a geographically named regional railway line in England but I forget which one). One participant did not understand that there were two distinct topics - a specific individual railway line (the subject of the article) and railway lines in general in the same place - and kept insisting the ngrams showed that it wasn't a proper noun. However in reality the ngrams did not (and could not) distinguish between the two. There needs to be flexibility to interpret the context of the specific discussion and that is lacking from this proposal Thryduulf (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, it's the other way around. Recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency are more important than things like "Use singular form" and "Avoid definite and indefinite articles" and "Do not enclose titles in quotes". It should usually be possible to comply with all of these, but I pick the first set of principles over the little details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• No, voorts is correct that our goal is not applying textualist analysis to whether WP:TITLEFORMAT is making those eleven points secondary to the five points of WP:CRITERIA or the superseding formatting guidelines. Any of these sixteen concepts can be the means to decide a requested move. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• No per WhatamIdoing. Ajpolino (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. WP:COMMONNAME is by far the most important thing to consider for titles (and yes, that often means looking at ngrams as well as other evidence). Where there's a clear common name, the policy and longstanding practice mean we rarely fail to use that - even where consistency might not be met. If and only if the common name is unclear, then we invoke the five criteria directly and try to reach a consensus on which title fits them best. If after all that there's still a lack of clarity, then I'd invoke TITLEFORMAT at that point, but not any earlier.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Cinderella157's analysis is correct, and many of the TITLEFORMAT points are non-optional, while all of the criteria are a prioritization juggling game of various preferences, any of which can be sacrificed when outweighed by other considerations, while much of TITLEFORMAT cannot. To the extent anything in TITLEFORMAT is actually optional, the solution is to separate its material into two lists, of mandatory versus conditional matters. The "No" commenters here all appear to be missing the point, and seem to have been triggered into strange defensive contortions by wording like "supersede" or "override".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  The only truly non-optional point under TITLEFORMAT is TSC because that's a technical, rather than style, issue. At least four of the TITLEFORMAT points have exceptions—including singular form, don't use abbreviations, use nouns, and trademarked names—so they are not required in all circumstances. Several of them don't really ever come into play in RMs, like use sentence case, subsidiary articles, don't use quotation marks, and italics, largely because nobody could credibly argue against those. For example, I can't think of a circumstance where we wouldn't italicize a film or book page title. The follow reliable sources point is just an amalgam of several of the CRITERIA. Regarding your analysis of the no !votes: the RfC is expressly asking us whether a certain part of a policy should supersede another. Indeed, Cinderella157 has used the phrase "over-ride" 8 times in this discussion so far. It's not a "strange defensive contortion" to respond to those points. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  The constant flood of over-capitalization RMs of multi-word titles tells us that "use sentence case" is actually quite important; while no one proposes "Use title case!", what they want effectively amounts to that, so this line-item in the policy is an additional shield against their over-stylization whims (though lack of consistent support in independent RS is more often the main one, whether it be a MOS:CAPS or MOS:TM or MOS:SIGCAPS or MOS:DOCTCAPS or MOS:SPORTCAPS question). The point about quotation marks actually does come up, though rarely (mostly with regard to phrases from conventional quotations or from Internet memes, and exceptionally with regard to titles of works that have internal, or are surrounded by, quotation marks of their own, like some famous David Bowie material). Italics: we have a long-term, persistent contingent who hate that WP house style is to put all major works in italics regardless of medium (they want to deny this style to electronic publications). I have to rather amusedly note that your engaging in another defensive contortion, handwring over just how many times the proponent used a term that triggered your defensive reaction, has rather the opposite of your intended effect of disproving my point.

  The question here is quite simple: which section of the policy has precedence when there's a perception of conflict beteen them? The answer has to be TITLEFORMAT because making it secondary would regularly (not strangely exceptionally, when sources really seem to dictate it) produce inconsistent titles even within the same category of subjects, yet CRITERIA includes CONSISTENT. That is, CRITERIA is effectively telling us, in CONSISENT, that it is secondary to TITLEFORMAT.

  A potential way around the problem, or perceived problem, here would be to merge these sections one way or another, so that all the actual title criteria we employ, including formatting ones, are in one place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please stop calling the no !votes defensive contortions. You said no !votes were using words like "override"; I was pointing out that it was Cinderella using that word. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Except I said nothing like that at all, but quite the opposite, namely that Cinderella157 did in fact use these terms and then you and various other "No" !voters are reflexively and emotionally reacting to what they could mean in some other context instead of analyzing their actual meaning and implications in this context. So, your apparent anger at me here really has no basis. You either do not understand the argument I am making, or are striking the pose that you don't understand, because you don't like it but can't seem mount a sensible counter-argument. Regardless, I predict no utility in me going round in circles with you any further. This kind of argument to emotion stuff is just pointless and anti-consensus. Instead of responding to anything substantive I said, you've retreated to an "offended" posture, in which bluster is used as a hand-wave to dodge every single element of the substance, and that bluster is based on blatantly misreading everything I wrote. Straw-man.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC); tone revised 15:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• No The point at issue is an attempt to lower-case an article title. WP:NOTLAW states that "...the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice ... Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures". We had a consensus-based discussion and that establishes the accepted practice. If there then seems to be inconsistency in the rules then the rules should be loosened, not tightened, so as to accommodate the accepted practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, the point at issue is not an attempt to lowercase an article title. It was prompted by quite a number of discussions where the issue was not just LOWERCASE but other matters at TITLEFORMAT v CRITERIA. The intent of this RfC is to determine what the policy is actually telling us as written (how it should reasonably be construed) as opposed to what editors think the policy should be telling us. This is stated in the Background section. It continues: If there is a disjunction between the two, then an amendment to the policy is indicated but that would be another issue. An inconsistency or a disjunction have the same result: if there is something wrong with how the policy is written then it needs to be amended and improved. It is unfortunate that responses here are more concerned with defending what people think the policy says than considering whether that is what it is saying in both the letter and the spirit and intent represented by consistency with other P&G. WP:RMCI states: Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Misplaced Pages community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. There is a difference in CONLEVEL between P&G and an RM. Arguments at an RM are to be assigned weight giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Misplaced Pages community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. If there is an inconsistency in P&G in what it says or what it might be thought to say, then this should be remedied else it is a case of garbage in, garbage out. An unwritten principle of WP is continuous improvement. Even Voots grudgingly acknowledges I might be right. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

We are told above that For context, this stems from this discussion (about this RM). I did not participate in that discussion and am here as a member of the wider community following the listing at WP:CENT. Insofar as there's a wider issue, it's that this policy page is so huge (about 5,000 words) that it contains numerous competing considerations. How these should be balanced and used has to be decided on a case-by-case basis and that's what the RM discussion did. There isn't a formal order of precedence and so the answer is still No. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• No per all of the reasoning above (nomination request to simply say 'Yes' or 'No', so no, of course not). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. To draw an analogy to broader Misplaced Pages governance—if the CRITERIA are the five pillars of titling, TITLEFORMAT is its MOS. In that sense, while we should follow TITLEFORMAT as much as is practical, it's nevertheless still possible for an argument to achieve consensus that a given article's title should diverge from TITLEFORMAT's norms in order to serve the overarching principles behind the titling process. Indeed, many of TITLEFORMAT's sections essentially enshrine this line of thinking outright, whether by noting standard exceptions (WP:SINGULAR, WP:DEFINITE, WP:NOUN) or directing us to follow the usage by RS (WP:TITLETM or the guidance on initials). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• No per Voorts, Andrew, SnowFire and others. They make the point much better than I could. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• No - Probably over-kill at this point but simple formatting issues are not nearly as important as the issues that WP:CRITERIA addresses. FOARP (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Reduce bloat, banners, and bananas

There's too much inaccessible content around this wiki. Also the sections in the article are trying to convey few things in many round-about ways. Verbosity is understandable, but not at the expense of wasting time of readers. Time is finite. For example, there's a wall of purple stuff right above this editor, there could be a yellow / red call-out above that, but I'm writing here, not in my browser's address bar. RealAdil (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The best way to reduce, is to remove entire sections, and then engage contention. Since it is categorised as contentious topic, resolving all raised concerns by humans here can be solved with active contention. RealAdil (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The wall of purple text is a closed talk page section. At this page, talk page sections are automatically archived 60 days after the last comment in that section if more than 5 sections are present. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of move discussion

A move discussion is underway concerning the titles of several articles which may be of interest to this project. Interested parties can join the discussion. SerialNumber54129 10:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Overprecision in (sports)people

Could you please check Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople)#Overprecision. fgnievinski (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit: actually, the issue applies to all people: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Edit_request_in_NCPDAB_(overprecision). fgnievinski (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Plural form in foods (important)

I would like to understand why, unlike some Italian foods (for example panini and cannoli), which are written in the plural, "hot dog" isn't written in the plural, although in Ngram the most common name is the plural; for English names this rule doesn't apply? JacktheBrown (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally, we use the singular form unless the plural form is the overwhelming use in English. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@DrKay: exactly, and "hot dogs" is a slightly more common name than "hot dog", according to Ngram. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I said overwhelming. slightly doesn't cut it. DrKay (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@DrKay: all right. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Panini and cannoli are a problem here. In English, they are singular. "I'd like a chicken panini, please, and a dozen cannoli(s) to go." I'd say English speakers are familiar enough with "-i" plurals (from "spaghetti", "linguini", etc.) that they may understand the use of these forms for the plural as well as for the singular, but they may not: it's "one cannoli", but either "two cannolis" or "two cannoli" is possible.

See the second paragraph of the Etymology section of the Panini (sandwich) (you provided the wrong link) article. I see that the Cannoli article is confused about this, beginning, appallingly, with its first words, "Cannoli is". This is outright incorrect whether you're following Italian usage (in which case you'd have "Cannoli are") or English usage (in which case you'd have either "A cannoli is" or "Cannolis are"). See also Biscotti, which takes the approach of treating the word as plural, "Biscotti are".

But one thing you generally won't hear from English speakers is "Can I have a panino/cannolo/biscotto, please"? And we don't even mean by "panini" or "biscotti" what Italian speakers mean by them. The same goes for "gelato". Largoplazo (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: what Americans and English, unfortunately, don't understand is that even we Italians don't usually say "spaghetto", because types of pasta are written in the plural even in Italian, but at the same time we Italians know which Italian foods to write only in the plural and which in both forms (however, it's written "linguine" and "fettuccine", not "linguini" and "fettuccini").
In any case, could you please correct the panini and cannoli pages? I'm not a native English speaker (also biscotti, crostini, grissini, panzerotti, pizzelle, salami, spumoni, and zeppole). Thanks in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

... we Italians don't usually say "spaghetto", because types of pasta are written in the plural even in Italian ...: I'm supposing Italians don't usually say "spaghetto" because it's extremely uncommon for someone to have a reason to speak of a single spaghetti noodle and that, if an Italian did have a reason to refer to a single spaghetti noodle ("You dropped a spaghetti noodle on the floor"), they would call it "un spaghetto". Is that not correct? Largoplazo (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: exactly, well done, obviously also for this reason. Not to be picky, but it's spelled uno spaghetto. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ha, I know that rule, but forgot to apply it. It's been a while. Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: don't worry, I'm glad that you tried. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not just Italian cuisine. Some foods are naturally eaten in the plural: corn flakes, baked beans, sprinkles, etc. Hot dogs are more of a one-at-a-time food, even in a contest. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: "It's not just Italian cuisine." So why, if both of the following pages refer to biscuits, in English "biscotti" (plural) is never written in the singular form while, on the other hand, "biscuit" is written in both forms? JacktheBrown (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: panzerotti is also a food to be eaten one at a time (it's big), yet someone has decided to write this food in the plural ("panzerotti"). JacktheBrown (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It is important to remember here, that two things do not count in trying to decide what the title should be: 1) logic, and 2) how it's done in Italian. This has nothing to do either with irrationality or anti-Italian sentiment, it's simply that in English Misplaced Pages we call things the way they are used in English (in published, reliable sources) and with words of Italian origin, sometimes it is the same as how it's done in Italy, and sometimes it's different. When it's different, we follow English usage. I don't know the policy at Italian Misplaced Pages, but I bet it is the same thing with English loanwords (with Italian usage being decisive, of course). Every language does this; it is nothing surprising. The phrase two computers in Italian is due computer, and any anglophone that shows up at Italian Misplaced Pages and tells them, "No no, it has to be due computers because you have to add -s in the plural" would have no leg to stand on. Other plurals: il film ⟶ i film; il bar ⟶ i bar; lo sport ⟶ gli sport; il club ⟶ i club, and so on. The situation here is the mirror image of that: we do not check what is correct in Italian when trying to determine what is the right title here; it plays no role. Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with panzerotto as that's what the OED entry has. That dish is similar to calzone which we have in the singular form. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you please propose a title change? I already tried months ago, but I didn't convince anyone. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

"Calzone" notwithstanding, I think it will be a challenge to show that "a panzerotto" is more common than "a panzerotti". The use of the Italian singular form "calzone" as the English word doesn't show that English speakers are prone to using the Italian singular and plural correctly. In this case, "calzone" came through in singular form, but then in English no one calls more than one of them "calzoni", they're "calzones". (I'm not even sure how many people pronounce the "e".) And I guarantee that the plural of "pizza" is virtually always "pizzas" and not "pizze". The bottom line is: Stop trying to apply Italian grammar to the use of these words in English! It will only frustrate you. (Besides, it isn't as though Italian does a good job reflecting proper singular and plural of words it borrows from English—it doesn't bother with the plural form at all! Il film, i film, il computer, i computer, etc.) Largoplazo (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: the point is that the panzerotti article had, since its creation, the title "panzerotto", and this until the move, which occurred this year. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at the move history and this doesn't appear to be the case—the article was created at "panzarotti" in 2006, and remained there until being moved to "panzerotti" in 2014. Then, over the course of this year, the article was moved three times (to panzerotto in January, back to panzarotti in June, and then to panzerotti again shortly afterward). In any case, even if panzerotto had been the long-term title, longevity alone isn't necessarily an indicator of suitability; it's the reasoning that counts. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the Cambridge dictionary, in AE it rhymes with bone, and in BE it rhymes with bony (both of which happen to agree with my perception of it, not that I get a vote). And yes absolutely agree with the bottom line: please forget everything you ever knew about Italian grammar and pronunciation, and stick strictly to English sources. Everything else is just a big waste of everybody's time. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

(FWIW, using the same word for singular and plural goes way back in English. One sheep, two sheep. One fish, two fish. One cannon, two cannon. So one panzerotti, two panzerotti, welcome to the club.) Herostratus (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This whole discussion reminds me of a big wall, where everyone feels compelled to write their own graffito. Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Well but that's how you know you're on Misplaced Pages Herostratus (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)cv

The OP seems keen to rewrite such culinary topics in Italian rather than English. I have started discussion about one such case at Salami. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with JackTheBrown on that one. I'll comment there. Largoplazo (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to understand this: why is "salami" (plural) written in English but not "prosciutti" (plural) and "mortadelle" (plural)? They're all three salumi and can be either countable (within a panini, etc.) or uncountable (when referring to the whole salume).
There's no logic. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

English is just like that sometimes. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Problematic "Use of" titles

It's come to my attention that there's a proliferation of un-encyclopedic titles being prefixed with the phrasing of "Use of". Is there a part of the guideline, aside from concision, that discourages this kind of unnecessary genitive possessive phrasing when simpler phrasing is clearly preferable? You notably won't find a single "Use of" article on Encyclopedia Britannica. Here, there's a plethora, such as Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war, which as an example could be more concisely and encyclopedically phrased as "Chemical weapon use in the Syrian civil war". In other examples, the phrasing is simply unnecessary or redundant, e.g.: Use of Nazi symbols in Taiwan – which could just read Nazi symbolism in Taiwan, or Use of torture since 1948 – which is no different from Torture since 1948 or Torture (1948–present). It occurred to me that both WP:SINGULAR and WP:NOUN partly apply, since the "Use of" phrasing tends away from both simple and singular nouns. But is there anything else that more firmly guards against this? Thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure that this is something that needs a policy to fix… just file RMs and propose a better title. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Identification of national organizations esp. government ministries

Recently, the article Federal Ministry of Health (Nigeria) was renamed Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare as an uncontested technical request. My interest is in whether the (Nigeria) should have been dropped: in fact, I want to propose that all national government departments should contain the national name: e,g. Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Nigeria).

In this case, it is not a matter of current ambiguity: there seems to be no other "Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare" in another country at the moment. So my request is based on the requirement for current WP:PRECISION in the first place, and then as a general policy to prevent future or uncaught ambiguity in the second place.

In concrete terms, the policy would be something like:

The title of an article about a current or recent government agency or ministry or political unit should, for WP:PRECISION and to prevent ambiguity, contain the name of the nation or colonial grouping (and, if relevant, the state, province or territory etc.). Examples of existing precise (good) names are:
* Ministry_of_Education,_Science,_Culture_and_Sport_of_Georgia
* Government_of_Georgia_(U.S._state)
If the agency or ministry does not currently have the national name in it, the name should be added in parentheses: 
* Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Nigeria)
* Federal Bureau of Investigation (U.S.)
* Province of Georgia (British America)
Exceptions: If the name is quirky, uniquely associated with a location with a unique or notable name, includes an unambiguous state name, or is a distinctive contraction, the national name does not need to be added or removed:
* MI5   <- OK
* CSIRO  <- OK
* Sichuan <- OK
* Taiwan <- OK
* List of governors of Okinawa Prefecture <- OK
* Biosecurity Queensland  <- OK
* Georgia Department of Community Health <- needs (U.S.)

This editorial policy would not extend to autonomous state-owned concerns, such as universities, utility corporations, etc. though it might be appropriate for editors to consider. It does not apply to town or local government.

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer we do Ministry of XYZ of Country instead of putting the country in brackets. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No strong objections: I think the important thing is the precision not the form. My weak objection would be that if the formal name of the ministry did not include the national name, it is better to have the fact that this is being added for editorial purposes made clear by using the parentheses: e.g. I think this is not right: "Federal Bureau of Investigation of United States". I thought of a compromise, Ministry of XYZ (of Country), but it looks silly to me...:-) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your weak objection: the bracketed form is unambiguous, and also helps to avoid giving a body with an already long name an even longer and potentially erroneous one. Musiconeologist (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This would be my suggestion as well, with parentheses largely reserved for further disambiguation (e.g. the Georgias, different iterations of an agency), in accordance with WP:NCDAB. But to OP's point, with very limited exceptions, I believe pages on government ministries and offices should have at least some geographic precision in the page title. And I'd say one of those exceptions should be for the handful of internationally ubiquitous agencies (MI5, MI6, FBI, CIA, possibly the NSA and TSA). Star Garnet (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Per WP:TITLEDAB: It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the precision criterion, only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used - ie we don't add precision unless it is needed to resolve an actual article title conflict. See also WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We also have the consideration of WP:COMMONNAME v official name. Any change mandating the inclusion of the country would need to be made as a naming convention or as part of an existing naming convention. It wouldn't go here. There is existing guidance at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (government and legislation). An argument to mandate would need to consider the existing situation (how are all of these articles already named and is there actually a problem that needs to be fixed - Federal Bureau of Investigation is arguably the primary topic. There is existing guidance at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (government and legislation). Cinderella157 (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  This clearly isn't a formal proposal, more so OP testing the waters. A low-traffic subpage is hardly a great forum, so this seems fine, at least for a pre-RFC stage. The question would seem to be whether or not the likes of Department of Health and Aged Care, Secretariat of Health, Chief Scientist Office, Directorate of Health, Department of Health and Social Care, etc. are sufficiently precise/informative so as to be useful to the reader. To me, they would seem to be ambiguous to the point of uselessness, and perhaps a standard like UK parliamentary constituencies or US towns is warranted. Star Garnet (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  The first question is: How does the guidance at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (government and legislation) not already adequately deal with this? The role of an article title is to be an unique identifier for information about a particular topic. Recognizability states: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. An Australian (ie somebody reasonably familiar with the Commonweath government) would recognise and search for Department of Health and Aged Care. There is only one article with this title. Adding Australia to the title (eg Department of Health and Aged Care (Australia)) doesn't make this easier to find. There are though, thirty odd articles for a government entity called Department of Health (without anything else). These do need to be disambiguated (see List of health departments and ministries, which is a hat note from Department of health (Health department). WP:PRECISION (I previously linked to WP:OVERPRECISION which targets the same section at WP:AT) is often poorly understood. As I indicated above, we only use sufficient precision to disambiguate a particular title from other actual articles that would otherwise have the same name. Anything more is OVERPRECISION and not as WP:CONCISE. Different governments use different terms for similar administrative bodies such as: department, ministry, secretariat or bureau. We are not going to mandate calling everything a department. Good use of hat notes and other navigation aids make things easier to find if someone is not sufficiently familiar with the subject to recognise the name and will be more efficacious than the suggested proposal. I just did this for Chief Scientist Office. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  A) It's irrelevant whether or not the naming convention deals with it in a discussion of whether or not the convention should be adjusted. Even if it wasn't, the phrasing is less than clear regarding natural disambiguation vs. unique names. Also, the guidance to avoid "Something of Something of Jurisdictionname" significantly predates the creation of WP:NATURAL and any discussion of that guidance isn't readily apparent. B) Those familiar with the subject would not merely be Australians, but those familiar with health ministries. While debatably irrelevant due to the existence of the Department of Health (Australia) redirect, how many Australians familiar with the government would know the name of a recently renamed agency? C) I (and I believe OP) understand WP:PRECISIION plenty well; the question is whether or not a systematic exception is desirable for one of the subject areas that WP covers most systematically.

  To add a bit of data (and realizing that it doesn't do much to aid my suggestion above vs. OP's): regarding the examples I mentioned above, results on EBSCOhost and Science Direct provide natural disambiguation for the Department of Health and Aged Care and the the Chief Scientist Office in about 5% of cases, the Secretariat of Health and the Department of Health and Social Care in about 20%, and the Directorate of Health in about 35%. And with that, I will bow out of this discussion unless it attracts more attention. Star Garnet (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Concur with User:Cinderella157 that this is the wrong place for such a proposal and it needs to be raised at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (government and legislation). On the merits, I strongly disagree because it conflicts with WP:COMMONNAME. No further precision is required when the name is globally unique. For example, DARPA is globally unique. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)