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 |
Archives by topic: |
Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. |
WP:CONCISE
Full disclosure: I came to this page again from a discussion at Talk:May 1968 events in France. This edit by me is not related to any of the arguments from that discussion, however. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Natural disambiguation RFC
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should WP:NATURAL and WP:NCDAB be rewritten to reflect that natural disambiguation should generally only be used to settle titles where there are near equal choices such as Chinese whispers v Telephone (game) (RM) and Handa Island v Handa, Scotland (RM) and not generally allow significantly less common titles trump the most common such as Bus (computing) v Computer bus (RM) and Fan (machine) v Mechanical fan (RM)? In the 2nd sentence at WP:NATURAL I propose to change "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names."
to "Natural disambiguation can generally be used where there are titles that are near equal choices (such as French language v French (language)), where its otherwise disputed such is best (like Chinese whispers v Telephone (game)) or where adding a qualifier is difficult or impossible like Sarah Jane Brown where plain Sarah Brown is ambiguous. In general qualified titles are preferred to natural disambiguation if the choice is not near equal even if the title would be understood, thus New York (state) is preferred to New York State and Bray, Berkshire is preferred to Bray on Thames, in particular do not, use obscure or made-up names".
I don't mind if all or some of this is in a footnote if this is too long and I welcome any suggestions for better examples. @Born2cycle, Amakuru, and RGloucester: Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. This will be a welcome change to bring policy in line with the de facto convention which has been confirmed by numerous RMs over the years, and the examples Crouch supplies above. I suppose the only other examples that may be worth highlighting are Association football, French language and Bizet sheep. The latter two are valid NATURALDIS because putting brackets in, to make French (language) and Bizet (sheep), simply adds characters for no discernible benefit. Association football is just another Sarah Jane Brown case, since nobody liked the previous title of Football (soccer) and nothing else really comes to mind. — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support as proposer, its quite clear that articles should generally be at the common name even if a qualifier is needed and in some discussions we blindly follow NATURAL without giving much thought about common names which can cause problems for both readers and editors, even I admit I've done this in the past. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Support, though I recommend tweaking the language to be clear “near equal” is in terms of how commonly the natural disambiguation term is used in reliable sources to refer to the topic at issue compared to the ambiguous most common name of the topic. —В²C ☎ 23:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)- Oppose, though I agree the current language is too vague and can be used to support natural disambiguation when it’s too rarely used, and so I initially supported this proposal, upon further reflection I’ve decided it needs more than a few tweaks, but a complete rewrite, and this train wreck is not where to do it. —В²C ☎ 15:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: The proposal is tightening/clarify of the language/adding to it so you can support some changing/clarify even if you don't agree with the precise wording change. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate the goal and your effort, but the wording needs to be fleshed out. I suggest withdrawing this specific proposal, hatting it, and starting a new discussion to work out wording to be proposed. —В²C ☎ 06:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- This proposal can discuss the wording, it wasn't intended that the proposed wording be exact just that it be clarified/tightened, you can propose different language or start a new proposal after but I think some may view that as forum shopping given this proposal was no over specific wording. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate the goal and your effort, but the wording needs to be fleshed out. I suggest withdrawing this specific proposal, hatting it, and starting a new discussion to work out wording to be proposed. —В²C ☎ 06:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: The proposal is tightening/clarify of the language/adding to it so you can support some changing/clarify even if you don't agree with the precise wording change. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, though I agree the current language is too vague and can be used to support natural disambiguation when it’s too rarely used, and so I initially supported this proposal, upon further reflection I’ve decided it needs more than a few tweaks, but a complete rewrite, and this train wreck is not where to do it. —В²C ☎ 15:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose – WP:NATURAL disambiguation has, for many years, been considered preferable to parenthetical disambiguation on Wikipedia. The additional text is confusing (it doesn't set down a framework for what a 'near equal choice' is), and for reasons that cannot possibly understood, issues a new preference for parenthetical disambiguation that has never existed before. This may result in many, many article titles needing to be changed, and it is not obvious that there is any good justification for this change, which could lead to extensive disruption. The present AT policy's wording is more than sufficient, already proscribes using 'obscure or made-up names' as 'natural disambiguation', and allows for editorial discretion. There is no need to remove the existing flexibility from this policy, and enforce a preference for parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 23:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. For the reasons brought forward by RGloucester. If anything, we don't use NATURALDIS enough as in the case of fisher cat which wasn't supported in favour of fisher (animal) despite fisher cat being a valid regional name for the animal (yes, I still care about this). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- We don't use NATURALDIS enough because it's a pile of horse manure. Wikipedia is supposed to follow sources and call things the same way as sources do. Most people who participate in RMs recognize this, which is why we end up with sensible titles on most of our articles. Plus, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a parenthetical disambiguator. To see so many seasoned AT experts digging in their heels in and defending a policy which has been dead in the water for years is disappointing to say the least. Perhaps the wording of the above proposal can be tightened and made clearer, but the fundamental point is both necessary and already in place. — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- What sources refer to 'New York State' as 'New York (state)'? NATURAL has never, ever encouraged the use of uncommon titles. It very clearly says that any naturally disambiguated title must something that the subject is 'commonly called in English reliable sources'. This proposal does not do anything to achieve the goals you claim to have. It simply creates a pretext for disruption across the encyclopaedia...and for what? RGloucester — ☎ 17:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
What sources refer to 'New York State' as 'New York (state)'?
That is the same as asking "What sources refer to the planet Mercury as 'Mercury (planet)'? It is called plain old 'New York' in the context of states, [1] and the parenthetical disambiguation mirrors that fact. StonyBrook (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- What sources refer to 'New York State' as 'New York (state)'? NATURAL has never, ever encouraged the use of uncommon titles. It very clearly says that any naturally disambiguated title must something that the subject is 'commonly called in English reliable sources'. This proposal does not do anything to achieve the goals you claim to have. It simply creates a pretext for disruption across the encyclopaedia...and for what? RGloucester — ☎ 17:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per RGloucester and MJL. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Conditional support with perhaps some more clarification on what "near equal" means. For example, if the US uses an ambiguous name requiring parenthetical disambiguation while the UK uses a naturally disambiguated name, it can be totally valid to use the latter even if the former is much more common by sheer numbers due to population. I think that will take care of MJL's concern. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: "Near equal" means where the natural disambiguated title is almost as common as the "preferred-but-ambiguous title", in some or many cases like the 1st 2 examples above it may be as common or moreso. Think of the New York example with respect to the city and state, some sources call the city just "New York" such as the AP Stylebook, Google Maps and the censuses while Britannica uses "New York City". For the city both "New York" and "New York City" are good choices but New York is unalienable so the unambiguous title "New York City" is an effective tie breaker while the consensus seemed to be that "New York State" wasn't common enough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support; natural disambiguation's that are not sufficiently common fail WP:NATURAL and WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and should generally be avoided, even if it means we need to use a parenthetical. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you on that. The present wording of WP:NATURAL does as well, describing natural disambiguation as 'Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.' This proposal doesn't do anything to further to discourage 'insufficiently common' names, which are already proscribed by the present policy. On the contrary, what it does is declare a Wikipedia-wide preference for parenthetical disambiguation, something that has never existed before. Why is such a change necessary to accomplish the goal you have described? RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- You, and Wugapodes, have a point. I still broadly support the proposal, and would prefer it over the status quo, but a middle position might be better. Perhaps
Do not, however, use made-up names or uncommon names, even when they are the official name or understandable
. Natural disambiguation such as New York State will continue to be an option and so the dispute there will not be resolved, but it should address the general issue which goes beyond more ambiguous options such as that. - Note the intent of "understandable" is to prevent titles that the reader will understand, but are harder to understand than parentheticals. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would be willing to support something like this. Iffy★Chat -- 17:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we need to mention official names but yes a qualified title for a common name should generally be preferred over an obscure official name. This is part of the "commonly used" part, the important point is that it should generally be almost as commonly used as the apparently preferred ambiguous title. With both the Fan and Bus RMs those supporting did so apparently mainly because they felt that natural disambiguation was generally preferred even if significantly less common while those opposing pointed out the problems with using natural disambiguation. There was no consensus in both cases and while the Fan article should probably have been reverted given the previous move request it looks like many actually supported such a move in the previous request even though they were against making the machine primary so leaving as is was probably OK especially since the move revert was because of the RM going on at that time. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would be willing to support something like this. Iffy★Chat -- 17:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- You, and Wugapodes, have a point. I still broadly support the proposal, and would prefer it over the status quo, but a middle position might be better. Perhaps
- I agree with you on that. The present wording of WP:NATURAL does as well, describing natural disambiguation as 'Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.' This proposal doesn't do anything to further to discourage 'insufficiently common' names, which are already proscribed by the present policy. On the contrary, what it does is declare a Wikipedia-wide preference for parenthetical disambiguation, something that has never existed before. Why is such a change necessary to accomplish the goal you have described? RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment So the case affected is that it would dictate parenthetical disambig when the titles are not of similar stature. I don't see where this makes any sense. What they might be after is the laudable goal that if there is a large difference in stature disambig should be avoided on the far more prominent one. For example if the article Dog (band) gets created, that does not dictate changing the Dog article to Dog (animal) or Dog species. North8000 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The proposed text is a regressive step that makes the disambiguation policy harder to understand and will lead to more disputes, not fewer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment How are New York (state) and New York State not near equal? They're literally the same sequence of words, just that the first has parentheses. Why would we prefer that as a display title and not the shorter and more natural title? — Wug·a·po·des 03:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree with that. I broadly agree with the proposal - unnatural disambiguated titles are problematic - but I don't believe the provided example of New York State demonstrates that, although the official name is not always suitable disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- The history of the article name of New York (state) is very unpleasant. To summarise, some editors argued that using the naturally disambiguated New York State was inappropriate, as it would give readers the impression that that was the 'official' name of the state, and hence, they preferred to use brackets. There was also some question as to whether MOS:CAPS would allow 'state' to be capitalised. The brackets allow that issue to be circumvented. Meanwhile, I tried to come in and point out that 'New York (state)' itself proudly proclaims itself as 'New York State' on its own webpage, but this was treated as folderol. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- User:Wugapodes, similar to the ambiguous Washington State, New York State was considered ambiguous with State University of New York. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Wugapodes. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, with the disclaimer that I'm not 100% certain how sweeping this proposal is, and that more generally this isn't a vote yes-or-no type issue. There are hordes of requested moves; nominator has cherry-picked some failed moves that favored natural disambiguation, but it'd be equally possible to cherry-pick examples of RMs that endorsed a natural disambiguation title. It's possible that the consensus of the community will shift over time from 50/50 to 70/30 to 60/40 or the like. That's all fine. It's clear that both natural disambiguation and parenthetical disambiguation are used, and there's different use cases for each, and the community differs a tad on how applicable it is to any particular case. That's perfectly fine and healthy: there's no need for any such proposal as the above at all. If the community really does soft-deprecate natural disambiguation, then we'll see all RMs start closing that way, and there won't even need to be a RFC then, just a validation of the hypothetical future situation. But I doubt that will happen - there are many cases where natural disambiguation is, well, natural. Some of the example failed RMs were not so much that natural disambiguation is bad, but rather that the nominator was trying to force an unusual or unclear phrasing - that's not a statement against natural disambiguation in general, just whether "computer bus" was really that common a phrase. SnowFire (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone benefits from vague guidance that facilitates decisions made randomly based primarily on the arbitrary personal preferences of whoever happens to show up at each RM discussion. While I prefer we don't imply some "naturally disambiguated" name is commonly used for a topic when it isn't, ultimately I suggest we should care much more about stabilizing our titles with clarified guidelines so the community doesn't burn so much time and effort debating issues that ultimately matter very little to anyone, in any practical sense. --В²C ☎ 16:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Here is one example of a failed parenthetical RM that I was involved in. I preferred Meta (company), but the naturalists thought otherwise. StonyBrook (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone benefits from vague guidance that facilitates decisions made randomly based primarily on the arbitrary personal preferences of whoever happens to show up at each RM discussion. While I prefer we don't imply some "naturally disambiguated" name is commonly used for a topic when it isn't, ultimately I suggest we should care much more about stabilizing our titles with clarified guidelines so the community doesn't burn so much time and effort debating issues that ultimately matter very little to anyone, in any practical sense. --В²C ☎ 16:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. This seems like a solution in search of a problem and the proposed new guidance is pure instruction creep. Calidum 16:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - yes, we shouldn't be using obscure or made-up names as natural disambiguation, but there are many times where the natural disambiguation would be preferable to the parenthetical. See for instance, King of Hearts's reasoning at Talk:Battle of Carthage, Missouri. This is instruction creep that isn't even an across-the-board positive. Hog Farm Talk 16:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Calidum, Eggishorn etc. Way too detailed, too many examples (some of which don't even have consensus, for example the last Sarah Brown RM didn't have any consensus whatsoever and I doubt that the other examples have a clear consensus either). We already use too many obscure and made-up names in misguided efforts to avoid parenetical disambiguation, so what we need to is to enforce the written policy better rather than try to write every possible scenario in to the policy. Iffy★Chat -- 16:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose because I read the proposal thrice and don't understand it, so I oppose replacing a short instruction with a long confusing one. Sandstein 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NCSPDAB says "It is strongly discouraged to add a middle name, initial, "Jr.", etc., or to use the birth name rather than the nickname (or vice versa), merely for disambiguation purposes. If this format of the name is not the one most commonly used to refer to this person, that simply makes it more difficult for readers to find the article." I think this was Amakuru's point at the Fan RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Sandstein above. I keep re-reading the proposal and I can't figure out just how it will affect many articles. If it's that convoluted and long I can't support it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Sandstein etc. I don't understand the proposal fully and don't like the parts I understand. You should re-write the policy first ... if you think there is any chance it passes. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ditto X last nine opposes. Mike Cline (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support The current wording gives too much room for ignoring WP:Common name. Avilich (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - Either natural disambiguation as first preferred or case-by-case basis should be status quo. Parenthetical disambiguation should be reserved primarily for topics lacking primacy or primary topic discussions or individual discussions about commonly used names. @Crouch, Swale: Have you considered withdrawing the proposal? The whole majority opposes, if not strongly opposes, it. George Ho (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can't withdraw it because there is support and its not a WP:SNOW case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - there are two issues here: the intended change, and the language attempting to make said change. Mild oppose to the change, strong oppose to the word salad. Retswerb (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as written. I might just be tired (or stupid) but I can’t make sense of
Natural disambiguation can generally be used … where its otherwise disputed such is best (like Chinese whispers v Telephone (game))
. It’s also not clear that this change reflects a community consensus based on RMs in general, especially when many of the examples given were close calls or lacked a consensus entirely. And maybe this is a different problem, but if we’re being this verbose, I would like the guidance to include an explanation for why New York State is looked down on, while French language isn’t. — HTGS (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)- Because it was felt that "New York State" wasn't common enough to be "near equal" but "French language" is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's not the reason why 'New York State' was rejected. You may want to read the old discussions again before making such assertions. In fact, 'New York State' is the most common way to refer to the entity when disambiguated... RGloucester — ☎ 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: My reading of the RM was along the lines at least of it not being near equally used/being inconsistent with other states which is the point is that it may not be a near equal choice? My understanding is that the term "state" is generally used as a modifier rather than part of the name which is why it was put in brackets rather than capitalized without. What is you're thoughts as to why the NATURAL title was rejected? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's not the reason why 'New York State' was rejected. You may want to read the old discussions again before making such assertions. In fact, 'New York State' is the most common way to refer to the entity when disambiguated... RGloucester — ☎ 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose because after several readings I haven't a bloody clue what the proposal is. Less is more. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This is completely wrong. WP:TITLEDAB only offers the options; it does not suggest which is best, because that is indicated by the WP:CRITERIA. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not sure I agree with the proposed interpretation, which is excessively wordy and seems hyperfocused on a few examples. Worse still, I think the proposed interpretation creates more disputes, not less, and could even interfere with other practical discussion. I'm open to other proposals, but I see the status quo as pretty good. Better than this proposal. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I had to read through a few times to try to understand it, and I'm still not sure I get what it means. If I as a veteran Wikipedian can't make heads or tails of it, then newbies who rely the most on our policies will be utterly lost. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Natural disambiguation is, as the name says, the natural form of disambiguation - ie, it is the name that can and usually is used to describe the topic. It is wording that can often be written out in an article sentence without the need to pipe. Natural disambiguation is simply an acceptable alternative name, sort of next on the list of most commonly used names for a topic. Adding brackets to a name is not what we normally do when describing something - it looks awkward, is awkward to use when creating links to the article because it always has to be piped, and is not something we would say out loud (because it's not "natural"). Using brackets to disambiguate should be the last resort when other forms are felt not to work as well. Natural disambiguation should always, naturally, be the first choice if it is available. SilkTork (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Natural disambiguation should often be piped anyway as with bracket and comma disambiguation such as "X is in the [[Torridge District|Torridge]] district" as opposed to "X is in the [[Torridge (district)|Torridge]] district" and inappropriate natural disambiguation may result in longer inaccurate names being shown instead of piped as editors may think the longer name is the correct one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- 1) There is no rule that says natural disambiguation must always be piped and it makes no sense to use piped links in the example you provided. 2) There's still time to abandon this sinking ship. You're no Edward Smith. Calidum 16:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't always have to be piped but it generally should as the name a topic is referred to should normally be the actual name rather than a less common alternative but there will be cases where the less common alternative is appropriate to use. To use a better example imagine if my September 2020 RM for Mississippi had have been successful but the consensus was to use Mississippi State per WP:NATURAL we'd have people writing "X is a city in [[Mississippi State]], United States" instead of "X is a city in the state of [[Mississippi State|Mississippi]], United States". Or an even better example (ignoring that fact its very unlikely to need disambiguation) Massachusetts State instead of Massachusetts (state)]] you might have "Holyoke is a city in Hampden County, Massachusetts State, United States". So article titles aren't just to help readers they also help editors use the correct name in running text. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, this would never occur because 'Mississippi State' is not a common way to refer to 'Mississippi' and 'Massachusetts State' is not a common way to refer to 'Massachusetts', so both would be unacceptable as NATURAL disambiguation under the current text of the policy, and no one would ever think to write like that anyway. However, in a case like New York State, where 'New York State' is actually a common way to refer to the state, there is certainly nothing wrong with writing 'xyz is in New York State', especially when confusion with the city is possible. By the way, WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to article text, and there is no policy on Wikipedia that specifies that article names dictate how one must write in the body of articles. RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't always have to be piped but it generally should as the name a topic is referred to should normally be the actual name rather than a less common alternative but there will be cases where the less common alternative is appropriate to use. To use a better example imagine if my September 2020 RM for Mississippi had have been successful but the consensus was to use Mississippi State per WP:NATURAL we'd have people writing "X is a city in [[Mississippi State]], United States" instead of "X is a city in the state of [[Mississippi State|Mississippi]], United States". Or an even better example (ignoring that fact its very unlikely to need disambiguation) Massachusetts State instead of Massachusetts (state)]] you might have "Holyoke is a city in Hampden County, Massachusetts State, United States". So article titles aren't just to help readers they also help editors use the correct name in running text. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- 1) There is no rule that says natural disambiguation must always be piped and it makes no sense to use piped links in the example you provided. 2) There's still time to abandon this sinking ship. You're no Edward Smith. Calidum 16:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Natural disambiguation should often be piped anyway as with bracket and comma disambiguation such as "X is in the [[Torridge District|Torridge]] district" as opposed to "X is in the [[Torridge (district)|Torridge]] district" and inappropriate natural disambiguation may result in longer inaccurate names being shown instead of piped as editors may think the longer name is the correct one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I think it is time to withdraw this. My reading of the discussion is that there may be a consensus for a change, but not this change. BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Consistency
@Primergrey: I was partially reverting an edit from two days earlier that appeared to provide additional weight to the "consistency" argument without a consensus to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see. Discussion over, then. I won't impede you again. Primergrey (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion regarding updating chemistry naming conventions
There is an ongoing discussion about an update to chemistry naming conventions occuring at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Updating_naming_conventions_for_groups. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion regarding naming conventions for events and incidents.
There is an ongoing discussion regarding naming conventions for events and incidents occurring at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Guidance at WP:NCEVENTS out of step with application of it. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)